Assign Mechanical Material

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

The annotations indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds no behavioral depth. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing materials), error conditions, or whether the action is reversible. The 'exactly one named body' constraint is a scoping detail, not a behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the action verb. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing, making it appropriately concise.

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?

Despite being a low-complexity tool with simple string parameters, the description omits essential context: it does not mention that the body likely comes from geometry_list_bodies, whether materials are predefined, what the output schema indicates, or how this tool fits into the broader mechanical workflow. The presence of an output schema does not mitigate the lack of usage guidance.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'body' is the named target and 'material' is the assigned value, but it does not explain valid material identifiers, naming conventions, or whether the material must pre-exist. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's string types.

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 uses a specific verb ('assign') and resource ('material') with a precise scope ('exactly one named body'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mechanical_apply_load or mechanical_mesh. It clearly states the tool's purpose and scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or relationships to other mechanical tools. The usage context is entirely absent.

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