create_text

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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, the annotations already indicate a write operation with potential destructive effects. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether it overwrites objects or affects the scene. It merely restates the purpose without additional transparency.

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 one short sentence, fully front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. It is concise and to the point.

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 tool has 6 parameters, all with defaults, and an output schema, but the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters interact, what the defaults do, or how the tool fits into the broader context. For a tool with moderate complexity and no schema descriptions, this description is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 by explaining the 6 parameters (body, name, size, extrude, location, font_name). It does none of this, providing no information about parameter meaning or usage.

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 'Buat objek teks 3D' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (3D text object), making it distinct from generic tools like 'create_object' or other creation tools. It is specific and not a tautology.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the function without any context, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools like 'create_object' or 'create_curve'.

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