add_primitive

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 states the tool adds a primitive but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the new object becomes active, whether it works in specific modes, or if any existing objects are affected. The description is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose sentence, then lists parameters in a readable format. Every part adds value, with no wasted words. The parameter list is organized and easy to scan.

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, but the description lacks mention of the return value (e.g., object name or success status) and prerequisites (e.g., Blender must be running). With no output schema, the agent might need to infer what happens after execution. It is adequate for a basic tool but could be more complete.

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 meaning by explaining that location and rotation are comma-separated x,y,z values and lists the primitive types. However, it does not specify units (e.g., degrees for rotation) or constraints (e.g., size must be positive). Overall, it provides useful format guidance beyond the schema.

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 that the tool adds a standard mesh primitive to the Blender scene and lists the specific types available (cube, plane, circle, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that add lights, modifiers, or perform other actions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., Blender must be open) or scenarios where importing a model might be preferred. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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