pbr_create_material

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

Annotations carry only a title—no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint—so the description bears the full burden. 'Create or update' implies existing materials may be mutated, but it never discloses what triggers an update, what properties get overwritten, or whether materials currently assigned to objects are affected.

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?

A single tight, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably undersized for a 4-parameter tool with no other documentation to lean on.

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?

With no output schema, no substantive annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description must carry the full context load. It leaves unanswered what 'update' means, whether values are clamped (e.g., metallic/roughness in 0–1), how base_color is formatted, and what the tool returns.

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%, and the description names no parameters. The domain-standard names metallic/roughness/base_color and their defaults carry some meaning, but base_color's format (channel count, range) is undefined and the description does nothing to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb-resource pair ('Create or update' + 'Principled BSDF material') and names the material type, which is more specific than a generic 'material tool.' However, it does not differentiate from the sibling pbr_assign_material, and the 'update' half of the behavior is left unexplored.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pbr_assign_material or shader_create_tree. No workflow context, no exclusions, and no mention of when 'create' vs 'update' applies.

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