blender_grease_pencil_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it adds the useful trait that the object is persistent and lives in the scene. However, it does not state what happens to existing objects, name-collision behavior, whether the new object becomes active, or what the tool returns. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is only partial transparency.

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 operative action and scope front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by adding the persistence distinction; no filler or repetition.

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 simple create tool with a well-documented 100%-coverage schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it identifies what is created, that it lives persistently in the scene, and that strokes are the input. The main gap is the absence of an explicit return/effect statement (no output schema exists), but the behavioral context plus schema make the tool safely callable.

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 the meaning of name, color, strokes, points, and thickness is already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond 'one or more strokes,' which only restates the schema's required property, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Create'), a precise resource ('grease pencil object'), and the key input requirement ('one or more strokes'). The second sentence's 'persistent 2D/3D drawing objects in the scene' differentiates it from ephemeral sibling annotation/markup tools, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

It implies when to use it—when a persistent grease pencil drawing is needed—but never explicitly names alternatives such as blender_annotation_add or blender_grease_pencil_markup or states when not to use them. The context is clear enough for a user who knows Blender conventions, but the description leaves the vs-alternative selection to inference.

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