apply_material_to_cut

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses required capabilities, mutation semantics, sub-layer copying rules, refusal cases, and that mismatched machine blocks are skipped and reported. These are exactly the operational details an agent needs before invoking a write operation.

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 dense but not bloated, and the main action and capability requirement are front-loaded. Every sentence adds relevant selection, refusal, or behavior information without repetition.

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 complex mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical gaps: permissions, copy semantics, selection behavior, refusal conditions, and partial-skip reporting. An agent has enough information to decide whether to call it and how to interpret the main failure modes.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining the alternative entry selection modes, case-insensitive material name matching, and how thickness disambiguates multiple matches.

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 verb and resource: it copies a material library entry onto a cut entry, including which parameters and sub-layer values are copied. This is clearly distinguishable from the getter siblings and from update_cut, which modifies a cut rather than importing library material.

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?

It gives concrete selection guidance: use entry_guid, or material name with optional thickness. It also lists refusal and skip conditions, which effectively defines when the tool will not apply material, but it does not explicitly name update_cut or another alternative for related operations.

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