create_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions creation-time properties but does not cover side effects (e.g., object added to scene, selection behavior), error handling for invalid class names, or permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. It avoids redundancy and is easily parseable. Minor improvement could be a more explicit separation of the type and params explanation, but it is suitably 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?

As a creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks essential context: return value, error behavior, and scene impact. Critical details that an agent needs to call correctly and handle outcomes are missing, so it is incomplete.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It explains `type` (class name) and `params` (with an example), but `pos` and `name` are left unexplained. Partial coverage: two of four parameters are clarified, so it only partly compensates.

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 action (Create), the resource (primitive/object), and the specific mechanism (MAXScript class name) with examples like Box, Sphere, etc. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_objects or apply_material, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage (creating objects) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_modifier or set_property. There are no explicit 'when not to use' conditions or comparisons to sibling tools, so the agent has to infer the context.

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