rhino_cmd_mesh_boolean_union

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the input requirement (closed meshes) and the operation, but does not disclose whether the operation mutates the selected meshes, creates a new object, deletes the originals, or how failures are handled. This is a significant gap for a likely destructive mutation tool.

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 core description is very concise and front-loaded: 'Boolean union of selected closed meshes.' The added 'Args: controller' boilerplate is unnecessary and slightly noisy, but the overall length is appropriate and the main message is clear.

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?

For a mutation-style boolean operation with no annotations and no behavioral guidance, the description is incomplete. It does not explain selection expectations, side effects, object ownership, or when this mesh command should be chosen over the many boolean siblings. The presence of an output schema helps return-value understanding, but the action context remains underspecified.

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, so the schema covers everything and the baseline is high. However, the description includes an 'Args: controller: RhinoController instance' line that does not correspond to any input schema property, which can confuse an agent into expecting an argument it cannot actually supply.

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 union) and a specific resource (selected closed meshes), so an agent can understand what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like rhino_mesh_boolean_union or rhino_cmd_boolean_union, but the 'closed meshes' qualifier provides most of the needed clarity.

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 about when to use this tool instead of the many boolean-related siblings, nor any mention of prerequisites such as selecting closed meshes before invoking it. The description implies selection-based usage through the word 'selected' but provides no explicit context or alternatives.

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