create_rock

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility. It only says 'Generate a procedural rock' without disclosing whether a new object is added to the scene, whether it is non-destructive, whether it requires a selected object, what happens with duplicate names, or what the return/outcome is. The word 'procedural' hints at algorithmic generation but not enough for full behavioral transparency.

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 succinct: a one-line purpose sentence followed by a clean list of arguments. Every line carries information; there is no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the Args section is easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and all-optional parameters, this is close to adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify the observable outcome (e.g., a rock object appears in the scene) and any side effects or constraints such as scene/mode requirements. It also doesn't state what the operation returns, which would be useful. It is minimally complete for basic invocation but lacks contextual detail.

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. The Args section explains all five parameters: 'name: Object name', 'size: Rock size', 'detail: Surface detail level (0-1)', 'roughness: Surface roughness', 'seed: Random seed'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles and includes a range for 'detail' that the schema lacks. A few descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Rock size' is close to the parameter name), but overall it covers every parameter.

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 states 'Generate a procedural rock' – a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('procedural rock'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_object, create_terrain, or create_tree, which cover other asset types. The term 'procedural' also clarifies the generation style.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenario, prerequisites, or comparisons to similar tools like create_object or create_terrain. The description only states what it does, not when it is the right choice.

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