Create a Part

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the forced write pipeline (backup→modify→validate→level.apply→level.save.file) and automatic rollback on failure, which is highly transparent.

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 moderately concise with front-loaded action and behavioral info, followed by properties list. It could be more structured but is 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?

Covers purpose, prerequisites, behavioral pipeline, and properties. Missing return value info (e.g., created part GUID) since there is no output schema. Otherwise fairly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value: it clarifies that Position is specified via CFrame.Position and that Size units are in cm. This provides useful context beyond the 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 creates a Part under a parent instance (parentGuid). It lists key properties like Size, CFrame, Color, Material, Anchored, etc., distinguishing it from sibling tools like studio_update_part which modifies existing parts.

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 a prerequisite: use studio_browse to verify parentGuid first. It implies when to use this tool (create) vs updates (studio_update_part). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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