add_object

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

No annotations are present, so the description is the sole source. It discloses that the tool creates a .yy file and registers it in the project, which are meaningful side effects. However, it does not address overwrite behavior, project prerequisites, or error conditions, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 that leads with the primary action and packs in the file type, optional events, and registration. No filler or redundancy.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It covers the core action but omits prerequisites (e.g., project must exist) and return/error behavior. Still, the schema descriptions fill in parameter details, making it minimally viable.

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 already covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only minor context ('optional event stubs' aligns with the events parameter) and does not explain parameter syntax or relationships beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create'), names the resource ('GameMaker object .yy file'), and notes additional scope ('optional event stubs', 'register it in the project'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_script or add_sprite_from_images.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided; it does not mention alternatives or exclusions. The intended use is implied by the action (creating an object), but the description lacks explicit direction on when to choose this tool over add_script or add_sprite_from_images.

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