proboolean

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

Annotations already cover the destructive nature (destructiveHint=true). The description adds context that ProBoolean may be unavailable and handles errors gracefully, and clarifies that the first object is the base with the rest merged into it. This goes beyond annotations by detailing the base-object behavior and the error condition, adding useful operational context without contradiction.

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 concise, with each sentence earning its place. The purpose and key rules are front-loaded, and the bilingual format (while duplicative) is still compact. No fluff or redundancy beyond necessary clarification, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's core behavior and parameters are adequately described, and the schema covers parameter details. The description adds the error condition and base-object rule, which are important for correct invocation. However, it does not explicitly address the relationship with the generic `boolean_operation` sibling or explain what the output/return value is (though no output schema exists). This is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% and both parameters are well-described in the schema (objects as operand list with first base, operation enum with default union). The description largely repeats this information ('multi-operand', 'first object is base', 'union/subtract/intersect/merge') without adding new semantic nuance. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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's function: using 3ds Max's ProBoolean for a more robust boolean operation, listing supported operations (multi-operand, union/subtract/intersect/merge). It differentiates from the sibling `boolean_operation` by the 'more robust' qualifier and explicit support for multi-operand scenarios. The verb+resource+scope is specific and 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?

The description implies use when a more robust boolean is needed and mentions the first-object-as-base rule, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the generic `boolean_operation` sibling, nor does it provide exclusions or fallback guidance. The mention of graceful error if ProBoolean is unavailable is useful, but the when-to-use vs alternatives is left to inference.

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