object.create

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

Annotations already assert this is mutating (readOnlyHint=false), destructive, and idempotent; the description adds useful context that creation is scoped to an active structural transaction and that names must be unique. It does not, however, explain the destructiveHint — e.g., whether a name collision overwrites an existing object or fails — nor the meaning of the idempotency key.

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?

A single 20-word sentence with every phrase earning its place: the verb, the enumerated object types, the uniqueness constraint, the collection scope, and the transaction requirement are all packed in without redundancy. Given the enormous schema behind this tool, the description is remarkably efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Despite the output schema and annotations covering some ground, the tool is complex: 10 discriminator-driven object definitions and 4 required parameters including an opaque expected_scene_generation (presumably an optimistic-concurrency guard) and idempotency_key. The description covers object-type and transaction basics but leaves an agent unable to correctly populate expected_scene_generation or understand the destructive-collision semantics, which are the highest-risk aspects of calling this tool.

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 0% schema coverage, the description carries the burden, and it does explain the most important parameters: the definition/type choices ('primitive, empty, camera, or light'), the unique name constraint, the collection ('exact collection'), and the transaction context. But two required parameters — idempotency_key and expected_scene_generation — receive no semantic explanation anywhere, so the description only partially compensates for the schema's silence.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') with a clearly enumerated resource scope (bounded primitive, empty, camera, or light) and adds scoping constraints: a unique name, an exact collection, and an active structural transaction. This inherently separates it from siblings like object.duplicate, object.delete, and object.set, which perform different operations. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 'inside the active structural transaction' implies a prerequisite workflow: a transaction must already be open, and creation presumably must be followed by commit or rollback. This is useful context, but the description never explicitly says when to choose object.create over object.duplicate, material.create, or scene.camera.set, nor what happens if no transaction is active.

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