blender_object_create

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds minimal behavioral context: it states creation happens but does not disclose side effects (e.g., adding to the active scene, handling of duplicate names, or whether the object is selected after creation). The return value 'Creation result' is vague.

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 highly concise: three brief paragraphs covering purpose, types, and parameters. It front-loads the core action ('Create a new object') and avoids extraneous detail. Every sentence serves a function.

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 tool's complexity (21 object types, optional mesh_params with many sub-parameters), the description omits details about result structure, default values, and error conditions. However, the schema and output schema presumably cover those. The description is minimally sufficient but could better connect parameters like mesh_params to specific object types.

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 description lists key parameters ('type, name, location, rotation, scale') but adds no meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Given that schema description coverage is 0%, the description does not elaborate on format, constraints, or relationships (e.g., which types support mesh_params). The schema provides detailed definitions per property, so the description's value is limited to a quick summary.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new object in Blender' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like blender_object_delete or blender_object_duplicate by focusing on creation, and it lists supported object types (meshes, curves, text) to clarify scope.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as blender_object_duplicate or blender_object_rename exist, but the description does not specify scenarios like 'Use this for new objects, not for duplicating existing ones.' The lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage.

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