rhino_mesh_boolean_union

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the basic side-effect profile is known. However, the description adds no context beyond the operation itself—such as whether input meshes are modified, whether a new mesh is created, or how overlapping geometry is handled. With such a minimal description, the burden on the structured annotations is not supplemented.

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 short and contains no filler, but it is under-specified and essentially restates the tool name and title in different order. It is not concise in a meaningful way; it is terse to the point of being tautological.

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 boolean operation requiring two sets of mesh IDs, an output schema, and destructive behavior, this description is far too incomplete. It provides no information about how to specify input meshes, what the operation produces, or any constraints or side effects. It is not viable for an agent to invoke this tool correctly based solely on this description.

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%, and the description provides no information about any parameters. The crucial a_ids and b_ids inputs, layer, name, and doc_id are left entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone. A description needs to compensate for zero schema coverage, and this one does not.

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 'Boolean-union meshes' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a mesh boolean union operation. It distinguishes from sibling boolean mesh operations like difference and intersection through the word 'union,' though it does not explicitly contrast with rhino_boolean_union or rhino_cmd_mesh_boolean_union.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_boolean_union for NURBS/Brep objects or the command variant rhino_cmd_mesh_boolean_union. There is no mention of prerequisites, selection context, or exclusions.

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