create_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does (creates objects), includes detailed parameter information, return value structure, and multiple usage examples. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error handling, or performance considerations that would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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 comprehensive but lengthy and not optimally structured. While all information is valuable, it could be more front-loaded with the core purpose followed by details. The multiple examples at the end are helpful but contribute to length. Some sections could be more efficiently organized.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: clear purpose, detailed parameters, return structure, and multiple examples. It covers most needs for using the tool effectively. The main gap is lack of error handling or side effect information, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing extensive parameter semantics. It explains all 4 parameters in detail: object_type with supported values and naming conventions, name with default behavior, position with format examples, and params with JSON format and examples. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '在 3ds Max 场景中创建一个基础几何体对象' (creates a basic geometric object in a 3ds Max scene). It specifies the verb '创建' (create) and the resource '基础几何体对象' (basic geometric object), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_light or create_material that create different resource types.

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 usage by listing supported geometry types and providing examples, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like clone_object or set_object_property. No guidance is given on prerequisites, error conditions, or when not to use this tool.

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