create_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait: the returned name may differ if the requested name already exists (auto-renaming). However, it does not mention other side effects such as selecting the created object or adding it to the active collection, which would be useful for an unannotated mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, fully front-loaded with the core action and key details. Every sentence provides value: the type enum and the name-remapping behavior. No redundant or irrelevant content.

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?

The tool is simple (0 required params) and has an output schema, which reduces the need to describe return values. The description covers the essential purpose, supported types, and name-remapping behavior. A minor gap is the lack of explanation for the 'location' parameter, but the overall completeness is adequate for a straightforward creation tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds semantic value by listing valid values for the 'type' parameter and implying 'name' is user-supplied and may be adjusted. However, the 'location' parameter is not explained at all (e.g., it expects an [x,y,z] array), leaving one of three parameters underspecified.

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 the verb 'Create' and the resource 'object', and enumerates the supported types (CUBE, SPHERE, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling create tools for materials, cameras, lights, and curves. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 implies usage for creating primitive objects in the scene, with no explicit exclusions or alternatives. It provides clear context but does not name alternative tools for other object types (e.g., curves, cameras, lights). Good but not fully explicit.

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