create_variants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behavioral traits: drafts stay outside engine assets/scenes (i.e., non-destructive staging), and normal create_prop publishes directly. It does not state what the return value is or the cost/time implications of a generation call.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then scope, then workflow. No wasted words. Slightly fragmented phrasing ('Wait with get_variants, view get_studio_preview') but efficient.

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 generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers lifecycle and staging behavior well, but completely omits parameter documentation (0% coverage on 4 params). An agent can select the tool but cannot confidently populate required fields from the description alone.

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% and there are 4 parameters, so the description must compensate — but it never mentions kind, count, asset_id, or parameters. It only implies 'two or three' from the count default. This leaves required parameters like kind and asset_id undocumented in both schema and description.

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 — generating 3D draft variants with identical lighting and three views. It does distinguish from a sibling: 'normal create_prop publishes directly,' clarifying the boundary. However, the term 'variants' and the exact artifact produced could be tighter.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Use only when exploring alternatives is useful') and names the direct alternative ('normal create_prop publishes directly'). It also maps the surrounding workflow to specific sibling tools: wait with get_variants, view with get_studio_preview, publish with choose_variant.

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