geometry-create_text

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

The description does not disclose any side effects, such as whether the object is added to the active collection, if it requires an active scene, or if it returns a reference. No annotations are provided, so the full burden rests on the description, which is completely silent on these behavioral aspects.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence with no redundant words. It is to the point and does not waste space, though it lacks structure (e.g., sections, examples). For a tool of this simplicity, the brevity is acceptable, but it could be slightly more structured with a brief note on typical usage.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is drastically incomplete. It fails to provide any context about what a 'text object' is, how parameters interact, or what the tool is used for beyond the literal action. It would be impossible to use correctly without external knowledge.

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 lists 8 parameters with titles and defaults but no descriptions. The tool description does not explain what any parameter means (e.g., 'body' could be the text string, 'name' the object name). With zero elaboration, users cannot infer parameter purpose or constraints beyond the minimal 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 'Create a text object' is specific and clear, using a verb ('create') and a resource ('text object'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like geometry-create_curve or text-create by its focus on a text object, leaving no ambiguity about the intended action.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention whether it is for creating 3D text in a scene, how it differs from text-create, or any context where it would be preferred. The description provides zero guidance on usage scenarios.

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