create_text

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states the output type. It does not disclose whether this operation is destructive, whether it requires an active scene/collection, what the returned object handle is, or how many objects it adds for multi-line text. 'Beveled edges' hints at geometry but no default or range is given.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded and free of filler. It is efficient but perhaps too terse for a 13-parameter constructor, trading completeness for brevity.

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 13-parameter tool with 54% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits critical setup context (font availability, units, parent/collection semantics, material handling) that an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 54%, leaving 6 of 13 parameters (name, text, align, parent, collection, bevel_depth) with no semantic note in either the schema or the description. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already documents for the other fields.

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 names a specific verb/resource pair ('3D text') and discloses the key transformation ('converted to a mesh') and a visual trait ('beveled edges'), which distinguishes it from the other create_* tools that build geometry procedurally. It stops short of naming an alternative but the resource is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing a font file path, material presets, or an active scene), and no routing to alternative tools such as create_primitive or import_model_file. An agent cannot infer from the description when this is the right choice versus creating the text elsewhere.

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