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 substantial work: it discloses background execution, that each script builds from scratch (so prior content in the asset is replaced), that default scene objects must be deleted, that unsupported materials fail explicitly, and that no external APIs are needed. It doesn't cover idempotency, permissions, or runtime/rate behavior, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first clause, then progressive detail on identity, placement, script conventions, and version limits. Every sentence carries information, though the dense multi-clause final paragraph could be tighter.

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 tool this is unusually complete on execution model, scoping, and failure behavior. The remaining gaps are the undocumented collider parameter and any indication of what the call returns or how queued Unity imports progress.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for three of four params: asset_id character set and stability semantics, position units (Unity XYZ meters) and the first-placement-only rule, and blender_python conventions (delete defaults, create Export collection, link meshes). The collider boolean is never mentioned, leaving one parameter entirely 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 description names a specific verb and resource chain — execute bpy code in background Blender, save .blend, queue Unity import — which is far more informative than the bare name build_asset. It stops short of naming or contrasting with siblings like publish_blend or get_asset_status, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 concrete when-to-use rules: reuse a stable asset_id to update rather than create, and position applies ONLY on first placement. It also states scope limits (v0.1 static meshes, constant opaque PBR) and that unsupported materials fail explicitly. It never routes to an alternative tool or states prerequisites, which keeps it from a 5.

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