create_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it creates a new object but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Create a new Roblox object instance') and adds a key limitation ('basic, without properties'). Zero waste, appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral context like rate limits or side effects, leaving gaps for agent usage.

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 fully documents parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples of class names beyond schema's 'Part', 'Script', 'Folder'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('Create') and resource ('Roblox object instance'), specifying it creates a basic object without properties. It distinguishes from sibling 'create_object_with_properties' by noting the 'basic, without properties' limitation, though not explicitly naming the alternative.

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 for creating basic objects, with 'without properties' hinting at when to use this vs. 'create_object_with_properties'. However, it lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites, error conditions, or when to choose alternatives like 'mass_create_objects' for bulk operations.

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