build_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: each script builds from scratch, default scene objects must be deleted, an Export collection must be created, meshes linked, supported PBR/emission/alpha graphs bake automatically, and unsupported materials fail explicitly. It omits failure semantics beyond that (what a partial build leaves behind) and permission/robustness details, keeping it below a 5.

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 primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining notes are dense, non-repetitive constraints. It is a bit aggregated into two long blocks rather than cleanly separated rules, which costs one point.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema, 4-parameter mutation-ish tool this is reasonably complete: it covers the build contract, material support envelope, and the asset_id/position semantics. Gaps remain around the collider parameter and what the agent gets back after the queued engine import.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for asset_id (lowercase letters/digits/_/-) and position (engine XYZ meters, applied only on first placement), but says nothing about collider or the expected content/constraints of blender_python. Two of four parameters remain undocumented.

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 states a specific verb chain and resource: execute bpy code in background Blender, then save a .blend and queue an engine import. That is far more informative than a restated name. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like design_asset, create_prop, or create_interactive_prop, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives one useful usage rule: reuse a stable asset_id to update the same asset, and position only applies on first placement. That is implied guidance rather than explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use routing against the many alternate asset-creation siblings, so an agent still has to guess whether build_asset or design_asset/create_prop is the right entry point.

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