add_boolean

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries a heavier burden. It does add useful behavioral context by warning that Booleans create messy topology and that results should be checked before applying. However, it does not describe side effects such as modifier-stack behavior, cutter visibility, or potential failure conditions.

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 the primary purpose front-loaded and a concise risk warning as the second sentence. There is no filler or redundant restating of 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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the main risk, but it leaves edge-case behavior to inference. The schema supplies solver and operation defaults, so basic invocation is viable, but deeper context such as modifier naming and non-watertight geometry is not addressed.

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 67%, and the key parameters name and cutter are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail and does not help clarify the undocumented operation or modifier_name parameters, so the schema carries most of the burden.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb and resource ('Add a Boolean modifier') and states the intended effect ('cut one object with another'). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling generic modifiers like add_modifier and from other specific modifiers like add_bevel.

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 a clear use case (cutting one object with another), so an agent can infer when the tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, and the topology warning is post-operation guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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