create_object

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

The description adds 'Aman di background' (safe in background), a behavioral trait not present in the annotations, which is useful context. However, this phrase is ambiguous: 'aman' (safe) could suggest non-destructiveness, conflicting with destructiveHint=true in the annotations. Since the annotations already signal the write/destructive nature, the description doesn't directly address or clarify the destructive behavior, and the term 'safe' introduces potential confusion.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and lists the available primitive types. Every word contributes to the purpose or adds the behavioral note about background safety, with no redundancy or verbosity.

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 having an output schema, the tool has 10 parameters and carries a destructive hint. The one-sentence description fails to explain parameter semantics, the consequence of creating an object (e.g., adding to scene, selection behavior), or the meaning of 'safe in background.' It is notably incomplete for a tool of this complexity, leaving the agent to rely solely on schema structure without behavioral or parameter context.

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% with 10 parameters, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It only provides a list of values for the 'type' parameter, offering some guidance for that field, but it says nothing about name, size, scale, radius, segments, or other parameters. This is inadequate compensation for the low coverage.

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 'Buat primitive dari nol' (Create primitive from scratch) and enumerates possible types (CUBE, PLANE, etc.), which identifies the tool's core function and distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_text and create_curve. However, including EMPTY in the list creates ambiguity because a dedicated create_empty tool exists among siblings, slightly weakening differentiation.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools like create_empty or create_text. The only implied usage is 'when you need a primitive object,' but there is no exclusion or comparison, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria on its own.

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