Create a new entity in the current O3DE level, specifying its name and optionally assigning a parent for hierarchy placement.
Create a new entity in the current O3DE level.
Args: name: Name for the new entity. parent_id: Optional entity ID of the parent. None for root-level.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| parent_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core mutation ('create') and the target scope, but it does not mention prerequisites like having an active level, whether the new entity is empty, hierarchy implications, or side effects such as selection changes. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.
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 front-loaded, with the primary purpose in the first sentence and the parameter details in a compact list. There is no redundant or filler text.
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 low-complexity tool with two fully explained parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits practical context such as requiring an open/current level and any assumptions about the newly created entity, which leaves some room for an agent to call it in an invalid state.
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 explain the parameters, and it does. For 'name' it says it is the entity name, and for 'parent_id' it clarifies it is an optional parent entity ID and that 'None' means root-level. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare JSON 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 states a specific operation, 'Create a new entity in the current O3DE level', with a clear verb and resource. It also scopes the operation to the current level, which helps an agent distinguish it from level-management and querying siblings.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as duplicate_entity, instantiate_prefab, or set_parent. The description provides no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent has to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.