blender.create_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that duplicate names fail with OBJECT_ALREADY_EXISTS rather than being silently renamed, that coordinates are in Blender units (meters), and that rotation is in degrees applied in XYZ Euler order. It stops short of covering mutation side effects on the scene, undo/transaction interaction, or permissions.

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?

One summary sentence followed by a parameter glossary and a compact JSON example; every line adds information and the most important scoping fact leads. No padding or repetition of the schema.

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 6-parameter creation tool with an output schema present (so return values need not be described) and no annotations to lean on, the description covers nearly everything an agent needs, including error behavior. The only real hole is the undocumented 'collection' parameter.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: units and [x, y, z] vector format for location/scale, degrees and Euler order for rotation, enum values and case tolerance for type, and uniqueness semantics for name. The 'collection' parameter, however, receives no mention anywhere, leaving one of six parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a mesh object') plus a scope constraint ('in the active scene'), which an agent can immediately distinguish from siblings like update_object, delete_object, and get_object. The primitive-type listing further pins down what is created.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as clone/instance creation or execute_python, nor does it state exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the create semantics.

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