array_object

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds useful context: it creates real objects (not a modifier) and explains that linked=True shares the mesh. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and key distinction. Every phrase adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the core behavior and the linked parameter, but omits critical parameters like count and axis that control the array's size and direction. While an output schema exists, the description should still address these key inputs for a complete picture.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'gap' (own size plus gap) and 'linked' (shares mesh), but does not explain 'axis', 'count', or 'name'. With 5 parameters, this partial coverage leaves gaps for important repetition settings.

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 tool duplicates an object in a row, separating copies by size plus gap. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the Array modifier by creating real, individually selectable/editable objects, which sets it apart from siblings like duplicate_object or add_modifier.

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 contrasts this tool with the Array modifier, implying when to use it (when real objects are needed) and noting linked=True as a lighter alternative. While it doesn't enumerate all alternative tools, the key trade-off is clearly communicated.

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