make_instances_real

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the new objects become 'separately editable', implying duplicated data, and it gives the return shape, but it does not say whether the original instance object survives, what happens to links and collections, or whether the operation is undoable.

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 first sentence states the core purpose and is front-loaded; the Args and Returns sections are terse, and no sentence is wasted.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, both parameters, and the return type, which is enough to call it correctly. The only gap is how it affects the original instance object and the scene's links.

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 does: object_name is explained as the instance object, with its likely origin, and keep_hierarchy is explained as keeping the instanced objects' parent links, which adds real meaning beyond the bare titles.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it turns a collection instance into real, separately editable objects. Naming create_collection_instance as the source of object_name makes clear what it operates on, which distinguishes it from the many creation and conversion tools in this sibling list.

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 says where the input comes from ('from create_collection_instance or a linked collection'), which tells the agent when this tool applies. However, it does not say when not to use it, nor does it name alternatives such as make_single_user, duplicate_object, or convert_object.

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