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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states that an object is created, but does not mention side effects like whether the new object becomes active, whether it appears in the scene, or if any selection changes occur. For a creation operation, these details are important but omitted. The description adds minimal value beyond the core action.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It only states the obvious purpose and does not use the space to provide any additional useful information. This is more a case of under-specification than effective conciseness, as it fails to earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name.

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 has 5 parameters (1 required) and no schema description coverage or annotations, so the description must compensate. It does not explain valid types, transformation semantics, or any prerequisites. Although an output schema exists, the description lacks all context needed to call the tool correctly. This is completely inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no explanation of parameters. The description only implicitly references the 'type' parameter but does not explain any of the five parameters (name, type, scale, location, rotation). It fails entirely to compensate for the schema's lack of detail, leaving the agent without any guidance on how to set these values or their meanings.

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 the verb 'Create' and resource 'object', and mentions 'specified type' which clarifies that the type parameter determines the object kind. However, it does not differentiate from numerous sibling tools like create_camera, create_curve, or create_light, which also create specific objects. It is clear in purpose but lacks distinction from alternatives, fitting the 'clear but no sibling differentiation' tier.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other creation tools (e.g., create_camera, create_light). No conditions, alternatives, or exclusions are mentioned. The description leaves the agent to infer the appropriate context, which is inadequate for a tool with such broad scope.

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