create_resource

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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true); the description adds genuinely new behavior: existing files are never clobbered, the parent directory must pre-exist, and a dryRun path exists. It stops short of saying what dryRun returns or how errors surface on an existing file.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying a distinct constraint, with the file-overwrite guarantee front-loaded. Nothing is redundant.

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?

Output schema and annotations cover the return and safety profile, and the description supplies the overwrite and directory prerequisites. The remaining gap is the nested 'properties' payload shape and the projectPath/resourcePath relationship, which an agent needs to build a valid call.

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 description coverage is 0% for 5 parameters including a nested 'properties' object, so the description carries the full burden. It explains dryRun and hints at typed 'properties', but projectPath, resourcePath, and className are only obliquely implied and no format for the nested object is given.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a built-in Resource') and pins down the output format (.tres/.res), which implicitly separates it from create_scene. It never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts resource creation with scene creation, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives a real prerequisite ('Parent directory must exist') and a safety condition ('without overwriting existing files'), which is more than most siblings offer. It does not say when to prefer this over create_scene or set_resource_properties, nor when to choose dryRun.

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