blender_object_create

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'Create' inherently signals a mutating action, and the list of object types clarifies scope. However, it does not disclose whether the object is added to the active scene, whether it becomes selected, what defaults are applied, or what the result/return value is.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose immediately and then lists valid types. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 simple parameter set and complete schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. Still, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits useful context such as how the new object is placed in the scene, default scale/location values, and whether the call returns an object reference or name.

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 schema already documents name, type, scale, location, and rotation. The description mainly restates the type enum values, adding little semantic depth beyond the schema, such as units, coordinate conventions, or default behavior.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Create') and resource ('primitive object'), and enumerates the exact types supported. This distinguishes it from related tools like blender_curve_create or blender_mesh_from_data, especially through the type list.

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?

The description implies usage context: use this when creating a primitive cube, sphere, cylinder, etc. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer an alternative creation tool, such as blender_curve_create, blender_mesh_from_data, or blender_collection_instance, despite many sibling tools being available.

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