create_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait: consistency of the object across images and angles, and that geometry drifts most. It also mentions rerolling with force. But it omits key mechanics: whether this is persistent/long-lived (only 'continuity_status' hints at that), idempotency, cost, or that seed/guidance_scale/steps control determinism.

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 appearance checklist is genuinely useful and front-loaded, and the scene/angle exclusion is a strong, earned sentence. But the opening anecdote about the treasure chest lid is long and the overall text is padded; it leans more persuasion than spec. Structure is reasonable but not tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't required. For an 8-param generation tool with no annotations, the description focuses almost entirely on the appearance field and lacks behavioral detail on persistence, determinism, and the many unlabeled generation parameters. Adequate for the creative how-to but thin as a full tool contract.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only meaningfully covers 'appearance' (extensively, with required content), and touches 'force' for rerolls. It says nothing about name, seed, width, height, guidance_scale, or num_inference_steps — six of eight parameters unexplained in both schema and description.

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 describes the goal in domain-specific terms ('定妆' = locking in a canonical look for a prop/object so every subsequent image matches it), which clarifies the purpose as creating a persistent object reference. However, it never explicitly states it is the object-creation tool relative to siblings like create_character or create_animal, and the framing is heavily tutorial-flavored rather than naming the operation. The intent is inferable but not crisply stated.

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?

It gives strong guidance on WHAT to put in appearance and what to exclude ('不要写场景和角度 —— 角度留给 subject_image 的 scene'), effectively routing scene/angle work to a sibling. But it gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs. create_character/create_animal, no prerequisites, and the 'force=true' reroll note is the only invocation condition described.

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