create_material

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that nonexistent parameter names are silently skipped and that parent_path falls back to '/mat' if missing. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., what happens if a node with the same name exists), failure modes, or permission requirements.

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 well-organized with a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted parameter list and return information. It is concise and each section serves a purpose, though the parameter block could be slightly more compact.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers most parameters but misses the required ctx, includes a type contradiction for parameters, and lacks usage context relative to sibling tools.

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%, so the description must explain all parameters. It explains material_type, name, parent_path, and parameters, but completely omits the required 'ctx' parameter, leaving the agent unable to determine what it should be. Additionally, it describes 'parameters' as a dict while the schema declares it as a string, creating confusion.

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 action: '在 Houdini 中创建一个材质节点并返回节点信息' (create a material node in Houdini and return node information). This is specific about the verb and resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_node or create_material_network, only relying on the term 'material node'.

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 like create_node, create_material_network, or assign_material. It includes parameter instructions but no context about the intended scenario or exclusions.

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