rupa_cad_boolean

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: volume direction is checked, half-failed booleans can silently return an intact operand, and invalid-direction results are never saved. This goes beyond what annotations reveal.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repeated schema information.

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 destructive five-parameter boolean tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, failure mode, and result validation. It does not explain return behavior, but the schema handles overwrite and workspace semantics, and the main risk is clearly disclosed.

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 80%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond clarifying the operation involves two shapes, which is a reasonable baseline when the schema carries the load.

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 names the specific operation set ('potong, gabung, atau iris dua bentuk') and the resource acted on (two shapes). It clearly conveys what the tool does and distinguishes the core boolean semantics without ambiguity.

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 boolean tool versus sibling CAD tools, nor are prerequisites mentioned such as overlapping shapes or valid volume direction. The intended context is implied only by the operation type, with no exclusions or alternatives.

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