production.material_analyze_pbr

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

The description says apply=true writes owned candidate materials, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. That is a direct contradiction for a parameter that controls mutation, and the description does not reconcile the claimed write behavior with the read-only annotation.

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 compact and front-loads the key default-vs-apply distinction. The second sentence is dense and packs multiple concepts, but it does not waste space on repeated schema content.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with 7 undocumented parameters and a serious write/read-only contradiction, the description 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?

There are 7 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions apply and loosely references profiles/channels, but it does not define options, material, definition, object_name, or material_name, leaving most parameters semantically undocumented.

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 resource and mode: it inspects/proposes PBR materials by default and writes only owned candidate materials when apply=true. It is clear enough to identify the core operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as material_validate_pbr or material_inspect.

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 process guidance such as using material plan references, explicit channels/profiles, technical QA, controlled lighting, and visual review before acceptance. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of adjacent material inspection/validation tools, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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