object-lod_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'decimated' and 'duplicate' but doesn't explain side effects (e.g., whether the original is modified, if the decimate modifier is added non-destructively or applied immediately, or if the new object is automatically selected). Given zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence, efficient and without fluff. It conveys the core action in few words. However, it's too sparse, bordering on under-specification, but since it is concise and to the point, a 4 is justified.

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's complexity (5 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, behavioral nuances, or use cases. The schema provides some parameter details but lacks crucial context. For a tool that creates a new object with a decimate modifier, much more context is needed.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in the schema beyond titles). The description does not explain the parameters at all. With 5 parameters, this is insufficient. The schema's titles (e.g., 'Decimate ratio for the LOD mesh') provide some clarity, but the description adds no value beyond the schema, and the parameters like 'apply' and 'level' lack context on defaults and implications.

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 the tool creates a decimated LOD duplicate with a generic naming convention, which is a clear verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like object-duplicate or object-collision_proxy_create, and doesn't clarify what 'LOD' implies beyond context. The reliance on the name 'object-lod_create' and a brief description is adequate but not highly informative.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like object-duplicate or modifiers-add. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., object must be selected) or typical use cases. The description only states what it does, not when or why to choose it.

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