add_object

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 does disclose meaningful behavior: external retrieval from Objaverse, floor-level placement with world coordinates, and yaw in degrees. However, it does not disclose scene-mutation side effects, prerequisites (e.g., needing a loaded scene), failure behavior on a poor retrieval, or permissions. Partial but not complete disclosure.

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 no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and placement semantics; the second efficiently packs parameter clarifications, which is justified given the 0% schema description coverage. Every sentence earns its place.

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 values need no explanation. With six parameters and no annotations, the description covers the full purpose and every parameter. Remaining gaps are non-critical for making a correct call: no sibling-routing guidance and no disclosure of side effects or scene prerequisites.

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% — the schema provides only bare titles. The description compensates fully: query is the Objaverse text query, label names the new object, x/y are world floor coordinates, yaw_deg is the yaw in degrees, and category is an optional single noun to steer retrieval. All six parameters receive semantic meaning 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 states a specific action ('Retrieve a 3D asset from Objaverse by text query and place it on the floor at world (x, y)') with a clear resource and placement semantics. It is readily distinguishable from siblings like move_object (repositions existing objects), replace_object (swaps existing objects), and load_scene (loads a scene), so an agent can tell what this tool uniquely does.

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?

Usage is implied — the description makes clear this adds a newly retrieved object to the scene — but it never explicitly says when to use this versus move_object, replace_object, or scale_object, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., a scene must be loaded first). No alternative tool is named.

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