Create Object

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

The description discloses creation modes (primitive, prefab, components) and scene behavior, which goes beyond the minimal readOnlyHint annotation. However, it omits important behavioral details like the precedence when both primitive and prefab_path are provided, and it does not mention any side effects such as selection or undo. Given the lack of thorough annotations, this is a noticeable gap.

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-loaded with the core purpose. It uses a concise field: explanation format, but several sentences are redundant with the schema, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it is appropriately sized and easy to scan.

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 the schema is rich and fully descriptive, the description covers the main creation options and scene handling. It omits the parent parameter but that is well-documented in the schema. No output schema exists, so return values are not expected. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description essentially restates the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., 'components: comma-separated types to add on creation' is nearly identical to the schema text) and adds no new semantic detail. It does not help beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Create new GameObject' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_object and manage_component by focusing on the creation of new objects, which is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when creating a new GameObject via primitive, prefab, or with components. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to guide the agent without confusion.

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