rhino_mesh_boolean_intersection

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 hints at preconditions (closed, pre-selected meshes) but does not disclose that a boolean intersection is destructive — the original selected meshes are typically consumed/replaced by the resulting intersection mesh. Error behavior for open meshes or empty selections is also undisclosed, leaving a significant transparency gap for a 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 sentence is a single, efficient, front-loaded statement: 'Boolean intersection of selected closed meshes.' Every meaningful word earns its place. The appended Args docstring is boilerplate that adds little value since the input schema is empty, but it is small enough not to be distracting.

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 0-parameter tool, the description correctly captures the essential hidden dependency: it operates on the current document selection of closed meshes. However, it omits the destructive consequence (originals replaced by the intersection result), which is critical operational context given there are no annotations. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be described. Complete enough to attempt a call, but gaps remain around failure and side effects.

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 tool has 0 parameters and the schema is 100% covered (vacuously); per the baseline rule, descriptions of 0-param tools earn a 4. The description's Args section names the conventional controller argument, adding a small amount of context about how the tool is invoked, even though it is not a schema parameter.

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 intersection' — on a specific resource: 'selected closed meshes'. This clearly conveys the tool's function and the 'mesh' qualifier plus 'closed meshes' phrasing inherently distinguishes it from the NURBS-based rhino_boolean_intersection sibling. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

The phrase 'selected closed meshes' implies the usage context: the user must pre-select closed mesh objects and invoke the tool with no further arguments. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., rhino_boolean_intersection for breps, or boolean union/difference for other operations), and no exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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