create_material

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining that created materials are placed in the material editor, listing supported material types with their characteristics, and describing the return format. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, but provides substantial behavioral context for a creation tool.

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?

Well-structured with purpose statement, behavioral details, parameter explanations, return format, and usage examples. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating parameter info in examples), but overall efficient with each section adding value. Could be slightly more front-loaded.

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 4-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: purpose, behavioral details, full parameter semantics, return format, and multiple examples. It lacks only some edge cases (error conditions, dependencies like V-Ray plugin requirements beyond mentioning them).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter explanations: material_type with examples and defaults, name behavior when empty, diffuse_color format with examples, and params as JSON string with examples. It adds significant value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the verb ('创建' - create) and resource ('材质' - material) in 3ds Max, specifying it creates various material types with basic properties. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_object' or 'create_light' by focusing specifically on materials rather than objects or lights.

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 implies usage when creating materials in 3ds Max but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'assign_material' or 'set_object_property'. It provides context about material types but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection scenarios.

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