Add a native GDevelop object

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and no destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about optional Sprite, Text, or Spine configuration and behaviors, but it does not disclose potential side effects like object overwriting, required resource existence, permission needs, or failure modes. It adds some value beyond annotations but remains incomplete for a create operation.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and efficiently conveys the key optional configuration aspects. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing required inputs) but remains appropriately concise.

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?

This is a complex tool with 16 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The description provides only a high-level overview, omitting required parameters, type-specific requirements, error conditions, and return behavior. It is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool without further schema inspection, which is especially problematic given the schema has zero property descriptions.

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 must compensate for the 16 parameters. It mentions categories like Sprite, Text, Spine, variables, and behaviors, but it does not clarify the crucial 'type' parameter, required fields (projectId, sceneName, name, type), or how nested configurations map to specific types. The high-level mention adds some meaning but is far from adequate given the schema's complexity.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' and clearly identifies the resource as 'an editable scene object.' It further distinguishes this from sibling tools by detailing optional Sprite, Text, or Spine configurations, object variables, and behaviors, making the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinct from tools like add_object_instance or add_object_group.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as add_object_instance or add_object_group. It does not state prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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