production.material_analyze_nodes

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description says 'apply=true writes only owned candidate materials' — a write operation. This directly contradicts the structured safety profile and would mislead an agent about whether the tool can mutate state. Even the 'original slots, images, UVs, geometry and animation remain unchanged' clause does not resolve the contradiction.

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 mode constraint is reasonably front-loaded, but the second sentence is a rambling list of workflow requirements ('technical QA, controlled lighting and a real visual review') and the tool name is redundantly repeated at the start. It is not excessively long, but several phrases do not earn their place.

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 seven-parameter tool with an output schema and contradictory annotations, the description leaves major gaps: most parameter meanings are unexplained and the read/write behavior is inconsistent. It gives some workflow context but is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool confidently.

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 carry the burden for seven parameters. It explains only one: apply=true writes candidate materials. Terms like 'channels/profiles' and 'material plan references' hint at profile and definition but give no usable semantics for options, material, object_name, or material_name.

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 the resource (material node graphs) and a dual inspect/propose mode with an apply flag, so the general purpose is inferable. However, it never distinguishes this tool from close siblings such as material_analyze_pbr, material_validate_graph, or material_inspect, and the verb 'inspect or propose' is vague about what analysis actually occurs.

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 sentence about 'material plan references for lifecycle calls, explicit channels/profiles, technical QA, controlled lighting and a real visual review' reads as a process checklist rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over material_analyze_pbr, material_validate_graph, or material_refine, and no when-not guidance.

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