production.material_accept

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

Annotations declare it is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive and not idempotent; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the dry-run default, the scope restriction to 'owned candidate materials' on apply, and an explicit non-impact list (original slots, images, UVs, geometry, animation unchanged). Reversibility and auth requirements are still unstated.

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 first clause is front-loaded and useful, but the second sentence is a dense comma-run of requirements that mixes prerequisites, QA process, and lifecycle references without structure. Every concept earns its place, but the packaging makes it slower to parse than necessary.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the description should map the key inputs (material/definition/object_name/operation_id) and say what acceptance changes. An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the input-side gap is substantial.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only explains `apply` and gestures at `profile` ('explicit channels/profiles'); `options`, `material`, `definition`, `object_name`, `operation_id`, and `material_name` are left entirely undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 name supplies verb+resource and the description clarifies the mode semantics: 'inspect or propose by default; apply=true writes only owned candidate materials.' That tells an agent what actually happens in each mode. It stops short of distinguishing this from close siblings such as material_apply_candidate or material_review.

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 lists prerequisites ('material plan references for lifecycle calls, explicit channels/profiles, technical QA, controlled lighting and a real visual review') which implies when this tool is warranted. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when-not to use it, so the agent must infer the boundary against material_review / material_apply_candidate.

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