make_demo_building

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool creates a building, ground, camera, and light, and that it returns one preview frame. However, it does not mention side effects on an existing scene, whether objects are appended or replaced, or any prerequisites, so some behavioral context is missing.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose before parameter notes. The English and Korean sentences partially duplicate each other, adding mild redundancy, but the overall size is still reasonable and the key usage hint is preserved.

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 that all 8 parameters are optional with defaults and there is no output schema, the description provides enough to call the tool: it explains the scene contents, the return value, the main style/ground choices, and the intended use case. It could be more complete about output format and scene interaction, but it is not critically incomplete.

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 compensate. It adds useful meaning for 'style' (plain vs. windows, with actual cut-out walls) and 'ground' (enumerated surface options, blank means default). But remaining parameters like width, depth, floors, floor_height, and windows_per_side get no explanation beyond their names, and units/constraints are not clarified.

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 action: 'Create a practice building with ground, camera and light' and notes it returns one preview frame. It also distinguishes this tool from destruction/editing siblings by saying it is used when there is no object to destroy.

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 Korean text explicitly says to use this when there are no destructible objects, which gives a clear usage context. It does not name specific alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a fully explicit when/when-not comparison.

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