blender_object_create

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the fundamental action and valid mesh types, but it does not mention side effects, such as whether the object is added to the active scene/collection, whether it overwrites an existing object with the same name, or whether it activates the new object. This leaves the operation's real-world consequences under-disclosed.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the primary action. It uses a clean, efficient structure: stating the operation first, then the supported variations. There is no clutter, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary detail, making the structure concise and effective.

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 the tool has four optional parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description leaves substantial gaps in behavioral and parameter semantics. Though an output schema exists, it does not resolve the missing side-effect information, prerequisite guidance, or parameter semantics. The description is too sparse to fully support a correct invocation in all cases.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does provide meaning for mesh_type by listing allowed values (cube, sphere, cylinder, plane, cone, torus), but it gives no semantic insight into name, size, or location. For example, it does not clarify size units, location frame of reference, or behavior of null defaults, so the parameter domain is only about 1/4 discussed.

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 a specific action ('Create a new mesh object in Blender') and enumerates the supported mesh types, which makes the tool's core purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool blender_object_duplicate, which also creates an object in the scene, so the differentiation is left to the agent's inference.

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 provides no guidance about when this tool should be chosen over alternatives, such as blender_object_duplicate for duplicating existing objects or blender_material_create for creating materials. It also omits any mention of the current scene state or prerequisites for correction, so the agent is left without contextual guidance on its appropriate use.

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