connect_substrate_slab_to_material

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

With annotations already flagging a destructive, non-idempotent write, the description adds substantial context: the Substrate gating, the exact error string returned when disabled, the internal mechanism (ConnectMaterialProperty(MP_FrontMaterial)), and the recompile side effect. This is well beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the action and the gating constraint, then gives the return shape. Slightly dense but every part earns its place; the inline error/return detail is useful given no output schema.

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 one-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the gating precondition, the failure mode, and the return fields, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% and there is a single documented parameter (material_path), so the schema carries the semantics. The description repeats material_path only in the return shape and adds no new meaning to the parameter, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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: connect the Slab BSDF output to the material's Front Material input. It names the exact input being wired, so an agent can distinguish it from generic siblings like connect_material_expressions or connect_to_material_output.

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?

Clearly states the prerequisite: the tool is gated by Substrate and only works when Substrate is enabled, otherwise it errors. It does not, however, point to detect_substrate_enabled or name an alternative when Substrate is off, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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