create_studio_floor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It goes beyond 'create' by disclosing the default appearance (dark matte), configurable color/roughness, and the meaning of height as floor Z position. It does not mention minor scene-level effects such as selection or active-object changes, but the creation behavior is simple and non-destructive.

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 two-sentence intro front-loads purpose, and the Args section is compact, maps cleanly to the schema, and avoids restating schema metadata. There is no filler or redundant explanation.

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 low-complexity creation tool with all parameters semantically documented and no output schema required, the description is nearly complete. It lacks details about selection/return behavior after creation, but an agent can call it correctly based on the provided information.

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 the description compensates fully: it documents all five parameters with semantics not in the schema, including RGB range (0-1), roughness meaning (0.3 = subtle reflection), units (meters), and the role of height/name. This is strong compensation.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a ground plane for studio scenes.' The next sentence, 'Works as a floor for products, characters, or any standing object,' defines the use case and distinguishes it from generic create_object/create_terrain tools among the siblings.

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 clearly specifies when it applies: studio scenes and any standing object needing a floor. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like create_object/create_terrain, so it falls just short of a 5.

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