boolean_operation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the order of operations (subtract = A minus all others) and the failure condition (broken faces fail). This is meaningful supplementary information that helps the agent anticipate outcomes.

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?

Two bilingual sentences with zero waste. The action, operands, and the critical warning are front-loaded. The bold emphasis on the watertight requirement draws attention to the key constraint. Every sentence 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?

For a destructive boolean tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: operand order, operation semantics, and failure condition. It doesn't explicitly state the outcome on the original objects (e.g., A is modified), but the destructiveHint annotation implies that. Overall it is reasonably complete, with minor gaps around return behavior.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds semantic depth by explaining the subtract operation (A minus all others) and the requirement for watertight meshes, which are not fully covered in the schema. This compensates beyond the baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb (boolean operation), resource (selected objects), and scope (union/subtract/intersect/merge). It clearly explains the first object is A and others apply to it, distinguishing from sibling tools like attach_objects (which merges without boolean logic) and proboolean (a specific Max tool). The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context for use: operates on two or more selected objects, and requires watertight meshes. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like proboolean or attach_objects, nor state when to choose this tool over them. The 'when to use' is implied by the operation type, but no exclusions are given.

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