Creator Store

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

Annotations already signal mutability (readOnlyHint=false), openness (openWorldHint=true), and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningful beyond-annotation behavior: search returns hasScripts, insert reports and names scripts so it 'can still be undone,' and private or deleted ids fail with a message instead of silently no-oping. This is useful context not available from annotations.

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 compact and well-organized: summary sentence, operation specifics, critical safety warning, and access constraints. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately covers return-relevant behavior: search results include ids, names, creators, vote ratios, and hasScripts; insert reports script count and names. It also communicates the safety check, undo possibility, and failure mode for private/deleted assets. The schema handles parameter detail, so nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that 'Only models insert as instances' for category, that only public assets can be inserted (relevant to assetId), and by reinforcing the op semantics. This lifts it above baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Searches Roblox's Creator Store and inserts models into the place.' It then clearly distinguishes the two operations, search and insert, and their corresponding outcomes. This separates the tool from unrelated siblings like script_edit or geometry without ambiguity.

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 gives explicit usage context: search finds assets, insert adds one to the place, and it instructs the agent to 'ALWAYS check hasScripts before inserting.' It also states that only public assets can be inserted. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling appears to offer a similar capability, so the guidance is strong.

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