model_from_scratch

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating and destructive tool. The description adds that the tool applies multiple operations (primitive, scale, subdivision, bevel, smooth), which is useful context. However, it does not disclose what exactly is destructive (e.g., whether it replaces an existing object or requires a selected object), so it adds only partial behavioral 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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key capabilities. It contains no filler or redundant information.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and destructive annotations, the description gives a high-level overview but lacks important details such as prerequisites, behavior on existing objects, and parameter specifics. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description still leaves the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions primitive, scale, subdivision, bevel, and smooth shading, which map to type, scale, subdivisions, bevel_width, and smooth parameters. However, it omits name and location, and provides no details on units, formats, or valid values, leaving gaps.

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 it creates a complete basic model from scratch, listing the included features (primitive, scale, subdivision, bevel, smooth shading). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_object or bevel_mesh, which focus on individual operations.

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 implies this is for building a full basic model in one step, which provides context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as needing finer control with individual tools like subdivide_mesh or bevel_mesh.

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