goxel_create_character

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

No annotations cover the behavior, so the description must carry the full burden. It states Goxel is used and .vox/.obj are produced, but omits whether Goxel must be installed, what happens on failure, whether files are overwritten, or that .obj export may be optional (the description implies .obj always, while export_obj is a flag).

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 establishes purpose, resource, and outputs with zero filler. Slightly dense with the parenthetical class list, but efficient.

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?

With four fully documented parameters and no output schema, the definition covers the minimum needed to invoke the tool. However, for an unannotated tool that touches the filesystem and possibly a GUI, the missing operational context (Goxel dependency, file overwrite behavior, .obj optionality) leaves real gaps.

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 all four parameters. The description only reinforces the character_class concept (listing classes) without adding meaning for output_dir, open_in_gui, or export_obj beyond what the schema states.

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 concrete verb (Constrói) and resource (personagem em Voxel Art 3D), lists the character classes, and states the export formats. This distinguishes it implicitly from goxel_create_object, but never names the sibling or explains the distinction explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no mention of when to prefer goxel_create_object, goxel_export_model, or goxel_open_gui. The context (creating a character) is implied but no exclusions or conditions are given.

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