Create C4D Entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses that the tool mutates by creating entities, returns a handle for chaining, and that object handles include `path` for stable re-resolution. It also warns about classical vs. node-material shader behavior, which is important non-obvious behavior.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, return value/chaining, shader caveat, and video_post clarification. Key behavioral constraints are front-loaded before the longer kind-specific notes.

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 tool's complexity and absence of an output schema, the description covers the most important context: what it constructs, what it returns, how to chain follow-up calls, and which sibling to use for node materials. The return handle format for non-object kinds is left somewhat underspecified, but the overall guidance is strong.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter context beyond the schema: it ties `kind` to specific behaviors (classical shader chains vs. node materials, video_post renderer effects) and gives concrete renderer IDs, which helps the agent understand `type_id` and `parent` intent.

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: it is a 'unified constructor' for object, tag, material, shader, and video_post. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming its scope and unique return behavior (handle with stable `path` for chaining).

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 explicitly says when to use it ('Unified constructor... in one call') and gives a concrete alternative: for node-material edits, use `apply_graph_description` instead. It also clarifies kind-specific behavior for `shader` and `video_post`, helping an agent choose correctly.

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