create_character

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Deterministic' hints at repeatability, but it says nothing about permissions, idempotency semantics, what request_id does, whether existing characters are overwritten, or what side effects occur on disk.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, though the extreme brevity comes at the cost of the missing parameter and behavioral detail rather than being purely economical.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a 7-parameter creation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves far too much unspecified for an agent to call it confidently.

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% across 7 parameters. The description explains only 'reference_version' implicitly; project_root, character_id, request_id, style, height_m, and body_type are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Create') and resource ('character blockout') plus two distinguishing qualifiers: determinism and the optional reference version. It is reasonably separable from create_character_mesh, though that sibling is never named.

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 phrase 'optionally from an exact reference version' implies when to supply a reference, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to create_character_mesh or import_character_reference, which would be the obvious alternatives.

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