construct_object

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of disclosing behavior. It details the workflow, security validation, error handling, iteration, and that modifications can be limited via allow_modifications. However, it does not mention potential side effects on the existing scene beyond modifications, nor does it specify if the tool always creates a new object or may replace existing ones.

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 fairly long, including a rationale and workflow that could be more concise. However, it is well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. Some redundancy exists, such as repeating 'FastMCP 2.14.3 best practices' and the workflow list. It earns its length by covering multiple aspects, but could be trimmed without losing clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers the main workflow, supported complexity levels, style presets, and iteration behavior. It explains how parameters like allow_modifications and max_iterations affect operation. It does not address error cases or limitations in depth, but the output schema likely covers return values, so this is acceptable.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds limited new meaning beyond the schema. It does provide context such as complexity levels and style preset definitions, but these are already implied by the schema parameter names and descriptions. The description helps by explaining the workflow in relation to parameters, but does not significantly enhance understanding 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Universal 3D object construction using natural language and LLM-generated Blender scripts.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_blender_script by being a high-level agentic interface that handles execution and iteration, not just script generation.

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 outlines a workflow and mentions iteration, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_blender_script' or 'manage_object_construction'. It does not state scenarios where this tool is preferred or avoided.

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