vw2d_boolean

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false); the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: one undo step, results inherit the first target's class and attributes, tools are preserved unless keep_tools=False, and floating-point noise is snapped to exact input coordinates. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs before mutating geometry.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's domain and guarantees, then a compact per-operation glossary. Every clause conveys a distinct fact (arcs stay arcs, attribute inheritance, snapping, undo) with no filler.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and thin annotations, the description covers what matters: what each operation produces, what happens to tools, whose attributes survive, and the undo granularity. The undocumented 'unit' parameter is the only loose end.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load and mostly does: it explains the target/tool relationship, the split_line format [[x1,y1],[x2,y2]], and keep_tools semantics. Only 'unit' is left entirely undefined in both schema and description, which is the one remaining gap.

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?

Names a specific operation family (exact 2D boolean/area operations on Vectorworks/Parasolid geometry) and enumerates all four modes with a concrete example ('a ring from its pieces'). This clearly separates it from siblings like vw2d_offset, vw2d_edit, and vw2d_transform, which do not combine areas.

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?

Each operation carries its own selection rule: union merges targets+tools into one area, subtract cuts tools out of each target, split requires split_line. That is strong guidance for choosing the right operation. It stops short of routing between this tool and siblings (e.g. when to use vw2d_offset or vw2d_edit instead), so it is not a 5.

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