create_build

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

Annotations only cover the safety/idempotency profile; the description adds the important behavioral fact that publishing is asynchronous and requires polling, plus the edge case where buildId is null and meta.hint directs to list_builds. It omits permission/auth requirements and rate limits, but adds real value beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then tightly covers return fields, async behavior, and the null-buildId fallback. Dense but each sentence carries information; the return-value detail is justified given no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, describing the returned fields (buildId, appId, status, url, name) and the async lifecycle makes the tool callable and interpretable. The main gap is the silent 12-parameter surface, but operationally nothing needed to invoke or follow up is missing.

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 only 25%, so the description needs to compensate, but it explains none of the 12 parameters (name, minify, version, imageS3Key, sourceMaps, concatenate, description, releaseNotes, optimizeSceneFormat are all unexplained). Only sceneIds, engineVersion, and primarySceneId carry schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a published PlayCanvas build for scenes in the designated project') and names the related sibling tools (list_builds, get_build, set_primary_build, delete_build). An agent can distinguish it from those siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Provides concrete follow-up routing: publishing continues in the background so poll get_build(buildId), and use list_builds when buildId is null. It does not, however, state when NOT to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives like create_checkpoint.

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