rhino_cmd_mesh_boolean_difference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the meshes must be closed and selected, but it does not say whether the operation is destructive, whether inputs are consumed, what happens if fewer than two meshes are selected, or what the output contains.

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 description is very short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the 'Args: controller: RhinoController instance' line is boilerplate that is not reflected in the input schema and adds little for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.

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?

Despite the output schema being present, the description lacks essential operational context: how selected meshes should be prepared, whether selection order matters, and how this command compares to the related boolean mesh/brep tools. For a tool with no annotations, this is inadequate for reliable selection and invocation.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The mention of 'controller' is a runtime dependency rather than a schema parameter, and the absence of parameters makes this dimension minimally demanding.

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 operation ('Boolean difference') on a specific resource ('selected closed meshes'). This is clear enough to understand the core function, though it does not explicitly contrast with the many boolean-related sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus rhino_mesh_boolean_difference, rhino_cmd_boolean_difference, or rhino_boolean_difference. The phrase 'selected closed meshes' implies a precondition but provides no context about selection order, overlapping geometry, or alternatives.

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