goxel_create_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about the fact that this writes/overwrites a .vox file on disk, whether it requires a Goxel runtime, or what side effects export_obj and open_in_gui trigger. Only "Constrói" hints at mutation, leaving reversibility and file-clobbering behavior undisclosed.

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 with the verb and scope first. The eight-item example list is somewhat redundant with the enum in the schema, but it aids quick recognition and does not bloat the definition.

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 4-parameter generative/write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what gets built but not the resulting file location, return value, or whether the model is left open in the GUI. Adequate to call it, thin on consequences.

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 all four parameters (object_type, output_path, export_obj, open_in_gui) are already documented in the schema. The description's list of object types merely echoes the enum values with no added syntax or format detail, so 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?

States a specific verb ("Constrói") plus the resource (a 3D Voxel Art object/weapon/scenery item) and enumerates concrete examples that map onto the object_type enum. It implicitly separates itself from goxel_create_character by scoping to props/weapons/items, but never names the sibling 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?

The parenthetical list of object types implies when the tool applies (props, weapons, chests, torches, pillars), but there is no explicit "use this instead of X" or exclusion guidance against goxel_create_character or goxel_run_custom_script. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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