create_text

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

The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the result is a spline and that extrusion must happen afterward, and it identifies thickness as the stroke control. However, it does not explain the destructiveHint annotation, selection effects, or what happens to existing scene objects; it relies partly on annotations for the mutation/safety profile.

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 compact and front-loaded, with two short bilingual sentences and no filler. The bilingual repetition is a minor cost but serves the audience, so the structure is still appropriately sized.

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 17 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for the simple required case of creating a text spline with text/size/thickness, and the extrusion note is valuable. It does not fully cover which of the many shared schema parameters apply to text, nor the output or destructive side effects, leaving clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description highlights text, size, and thickness, which helps orient the agent, but it adds little beyond the schema and does not clarify whether the many other accepted shape parameters—like radius, sides, turns—are relevant or ignored for create_text.

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 opens with '创建文字样条（Text） / Create a Text spline', clearly stating a specific verb and resource. The note that text must be a spline before extruding also separates this creation step from later modeling operations, making it distinct from sibling create_* tools.

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 gives a clear workflow context: text must be a spline before extruding, so an agent knows this is the correct tool for creating a text spline that will later be extruded. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it does not reach a 5.

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