Add a special element

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Pass its properties directly' hints that the properties object is passed through unvalidated, but nothing is said about required project/parent context, side effects, undo integration, or return values (no output schema exists either).

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 short sentences with the actionable type list front-loaded and no wasted wording. The trailing 'Pass its properties directly' is under-specified rather than verbose, but it is brief enough not to harm readability.

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 creation tool with a nested properties object, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema-level parameter docs, the description is too thin. An agent still lacks guidance on required context, valid property keys, and what is returned or how the new element is identified.

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 substantially helps for the required 'type' parameter by enumerating the six valid values (the schema has no enum), but 'name', 'parent', and the nested 'properties' object remain unexplained beyond the vague 'pass its properties directly'.

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?

States a clear verb (Create) and enumerates the specific element types it handles (locator, null_object, bounding_box, texture_mesh, armature, armature_bone), which distinguishes it from siblings like bb_add_cube and bb_add_mesh. The scope is specific, though it doesn't explain how these 'special elements' relate to the mesh/cube creation siblings.

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 what can be created but never states when to choose this tool over bb_add_cube, bb_add_mesh, or bb_add_group, nor any prerequisites (e.g. an open project or an existing parent). Usage is only implied by the type list.

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