blender_create_primitive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'creates' an object, implying an additive operation, but does not disclose side effects such as whether the object is added to the active scene, whether naming collisions are prevented beyond the 'unique name' schema hint, or whether an undo step is created.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately enumerates the supported primitive types. Every part is useful and there is no wasted wording.

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 simple creation tool with a fully described input schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves out some operational context such as what the tool returns (e.g., created object name), coordinate-space assumptions, and any scene-state side effects.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds only a high-level context ('3D procedural primitive') and repeats the primitive type list already present in the enum; it provides no additional meaning for size, scale, location, or rotation beyond what the schema states.

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 verb ('Creates') and a precise resource ('3D procedural primitive'), and enumerates the supported types (cube, sphere, cylinder, torus, plane, cone, monkey). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like camera setup, modifiers, materials, and scene export.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives. It does not mention, for example, that it should be used instead of blender_execute_bpy for primitive creation or that other tools should be used for sculpting/modeling operations.

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