art.detail.material

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says what the tool applies, not whether it replaces existing content, respects region boundaries, uses the seed deterministically, or has any side effects on the canvas session.

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 one focused sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the parenthetical definition of 'full material treatment' earns its place by clarifying scope.

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 mutating tool with 7 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is not enough. It omits behavior around the target region, coordinate handling, seed reproducibility, and what the operation means for existing canvas content.

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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only light context around 'region' and 'material', but it does not deepen the meaning of the seed, coordinates, or session parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action ('Apply a full material treatment') and target ('to a region'). The parenthetical 'all texture patterns for that material' helps distinguish this from a single texture/detail operation, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 phrase 'full material treatment (all texture patterns)' implies this tool is for applying complete material coverage rather than individual detail effects. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as art.detail.texture or art.detail.speckle.

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