rhino_cmd_boolean_union

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool operates on the current selection of closed polysurfaces/solids, but it does not disclose whether original objects are consumed or replaced, what happens if no valid selection exists, or how the result is returned. The Args block documents a controller parameter that is absent from the schema, adding confusion rather than clarity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The functional sentence is short and front-loaded, which is good. However, the Args block is superfluous and inconsistent with the empty schema, and it earns no place in the description. The overall structure is acceptable but not a model of economy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This tool depends on document state (current selection), yet the description never explains the selection precondition, the outcome of the operation, or its relationship to the identically named rhino_boolean_union sibling. An output schema exists, but operation semantics are under-specified; an agent cannot reliably predict what will happen when it invokes this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to document beyond the implicit document-selection context. The description's mention of a 'controller: RhinoController instance' argument is actually misleading since the schema defines no properties, but this does not detract from parameter semantics because no real parameters exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Boolean union of selected closed polysurfaces / solids.' This clearly communicates that the tool fuses selected solid geometry. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling rhino_boolean_union or the mesh-based boolean siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like rhino_boolean_union, rhino_mesh_boolean_union, or rhino_boolean_difference. The description implies it acts on selected geometry but never states that a selection must exist first or how to prepare it. An agent must infer all usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.