Create Primitive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the resource being created. It does not disclose mutation semantics such as where the node is added (current scene), whether it targets the active session, or any undo/permission behavior for an operation that clearly mutates scene state.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action, the object class, and the allowed types with zero waste. Appropriate for a straightforward creation tool.

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?

An output schema exists and the schema fully documents the 8 parameters, so return values and argument meaning are covered elsewhere. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and a session_key parameter implying multi-session targeting, the description omits any session/scene context, leaving a modest gap.

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 100%, so every parameter (name, size, scale, parent, position, rotation, session_key) is already documented in the schema; the description only echoes the type enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds essentially nothing beyond structured 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 states a specific verb and resource ("Create a polygon primitive") and enumerates the supported kinds, so the agent immediately knows what the tool produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like duplicate_object or the execute_python/execute_mel escape hatches, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 versus alternatives such as duplicate_object or constructing geometry via execute_python/execute_mel. No prerequisites, session requirements, or exclusions are stated.

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