create_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, error conditions, permissions, or return values, only that it creates an instance. The 'without properties' qualifier offers limited context about limitations, but the overall behavioral transparency is thin.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and scope. It wastes no words and is easy to parse.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the schema fully covers parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., path to the created object) or handle error scenarios. It does disambiguate from more complex creation tools, but lacks some completeness for operational context.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (className, parent, and optional name), so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already contains, so the 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?

The description clearly states the action (create), the resource (new Roblox object instance), and the scope ('basic, without properties'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_object_with_properties and mass_create_objects by specifying this is a single, property-less creation.

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 phrase 'without properties' implicitly signals this is for simple creation, and sibling names like create_object_with_properties suggest the alternative. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no direct naming of alternatives.

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