build_gun

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses runtime (15-30 s), the extra cost of motion (~1 minute), the artifacts written to disk, and the shape of the return (failed checks, size, files). It stops short of saying where files land or whether an existing build is overwritten.

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?

Front-loads the verb and resource, which is good, but the second clause is a dense, semicolon-punctuated inventory of outputs and the closing sentence about returns is grammatically tangled. Information density is high but readability suffers.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly explains what comes back (failed checks, size, files) and the artifact set. For a tool with 0 required parameters it leaves open what happens when name/platform/preset are all omitted, a minor gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description confirms role of motion (GIFs), preset and platform, but adds no syntax or interaction rules beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ('Builds a gun in Blender') and enumerates exactly what is produced (rig FBX, magazine FBX, attachment FBX, .blend, facts.json, dev views). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like build_gun_clips, list_builds, or read_build.

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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as build_gun_clips, list_presets, or list_platforms, and no mention that a preset must be discovered first. The only implicit cue is the preset/platform distinction inside the parameter schema, not the description.

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