create_build

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to establish mutability. It adds useful behavioral context: preview_only validates and reports counts without writing, and unknown models are reported because external mounts may supply them.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds only relevant operational details in compact sentences. There is no obvious filler, and each sentence contributes useful context.

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?

The tool has a complex nested schema, many fields, and destructive behavior, so more parameter and overwrite guidance would be helpful. The description covers purpose, preview mode, welding, and unknown-model handling, and an output schema exists, but it remains incomplete for the full parameter surface.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It mentions positions, angles, color, material, Weld/NoCollide, weld_to_head, and preview_only, but leaves many important parameters and nested fields undocumented, including overwrite, revision, head_id, ground_z, frozen, skin, force_limit, and nocollide 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 states a specific verb and resource: building prop_physics entities with positions, angles, color, material, and constraints. It is clear what the tool creates, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as write_dupe or transform_dupe.

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 usage for build creation and gives some in-tool guidance by mentioning weld_to_head and preview_only. However, it does not state when to use create_build instead of sibling tools like write_dupe, nor does it define exclusions or prerequisites.

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