createObject

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a write operation ('Add'), it returns a value ('Returns the assigned id'), and it has a prerequisite workflow. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like scene performance impact, whether duplicates are allowed, or error conditions for invalid parameters.

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 with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose and return value. The second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a complex creation tool with 16 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good foundational context. It covers the core purpose, return value, and a critical prerequisite. However, it could better address the complexity by mentioning parameter dependencies or common usage patterns given the extensive parameter set.

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 94%, so the schema already documents most parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have explained parameter interactions or constraints.

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 action ('Add a 3D object') and the target ('to the live scene'), specifying the resource being created. It distinguishes from siblings like 'createLight' or 'createParticles' by focusing on 3D objects, and from 'cloneObject' by creating new rather than copying existing objects.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Always call getSceneState first to understand what already exists.' This gives a clear prerequisite and distinguishes when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'updateObject' or 'cloneObject' that modify existing objects.

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