create_interactive_prop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully: it discloses an asynchronous 'workflow' that must be polled until completed, retained base/moving mesh structure, Unity prefab / UE Blueprint output, and an optional demo requiring camera aim plus E. It omits permission/asset-overwrite behavior, but the async and artifact-model disclosure is substantial.

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-loads the core capability, then units/axes, then artifact retention, then the async polling contract. Dense but structured; the closing demo/input-binding sentence is the least essential and could be trimmed.

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 5-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers units, axis convention, async polling, retained meshes, and the target engine artifact. The main gap is asset_id semantics (does it create or overwrite a library asset?), but overall it is sufficient to invoke the tool.

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: it defines dimensions as width/depth/height in meters, explains that position uses target engine axes, and implies the valid 'kind' values (door/chest/pickup). However, color and asset_id remain undocumented in both schema and text, so the compensation is partial.

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 and resource ('Build a door, chest or pickup') and pins the differentiator: 'native gameplay behavior', which separates it from plain prop siblings like create_prop, revise_prop, and edit_prop_part. An agent can choose this tool without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'interactive prop' and the demo instructions, but the description never says when to prefer this over create_prop, create_prop_set, or configure_interaction, nor when it is inappropriate. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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