catia_boolean

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

The description discloses that 'the tool body is consumed into the target body', which is a destructive side effect on the tool body. This contradicts the tool's annotations where destructiveHint is false. Per the rubric, a description that contradicts annotations must receive a 1.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and operation list, and the second delivers the essential side-effect warning. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the primary purpose and the key side effect, but it leaves gaps for a mutation tool: no mention of what happens to the target body after the operation, no return/result info (no output schema), no prerequisites, and no explanation of the name parameter's role. It is adequate but not complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping operation values to familiar terms (add=union, remove=subtract) and by clarifying the tool/target body relationship through the consumption behavior. This goes beyond the raw enum strings in the schema.

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 states the tool combines two bodies and enumerates the supported operations (add, remove, intersect, union-trim), making the purpose unmistakable. However, it does not distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like catia_solid_combine, so it stops 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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as catia_solid_combine, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. The only behavioral note about tool body consumption is a side-effect warning, not a usage guideline.

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