Subtract one mesh from another to create a boolean difference. Provide mesh IDs for A and B to remove B's volume from A, yielding the resulting mesh.
Boolean-difference meshes (a - b).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as destructive and not read-only. The description adds the 'a - b' operand ordering, which clarifies which meshes are subtracted from which, but it does not explain whether source meshes are consumed, modified, or preserved.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential operation directly, though more behavioral and usage detail could be added without harming conciseness.
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 simple boolean operation, the description plus the output schema and destructive annotation cover the basics. However, it leaves gaps around when to use this tool, what happens to the input objects, and the meaning of optional parameters.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies a_ids and b_ids via 'a - b', but it does not explain optional parameters like name, layer, or doc_id beyond what the bare schema field names imply.
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 clearly identifies the operation: subtracting b meshes from a meshes via boolean difference. It distinguishes itself from union/intersection mesh tools, though it does not differentiate from the similar sibling rhino_cmd_mesh_boolean_difference.
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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like rhino_boolean_difference or rhino_cmd_mesh_boolean_difference. The description states what it does but not the conditions under which it should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.