production.material_apply_candidate

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the default is non-writing, apply=true only writes owned candidate materials, and original slots, images, UVs, geometry and animation are preserved. That scope-of-effect disclosure is exactly what a non-destructive mutation tool needs; it stops short of stating permissions or rollback expectations.

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 most important fact (default inspect, apply=true writes) is front-loaded, which is good. The second sentence is a long run-on string of workflow imperatives that mixes tool guidance with policy advice and dilutes the message.

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?

The output schema means return values need not be explained, and the write semantics are covered. However, for an 8-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the description leaves too much undefined to be considered complete for correct invocation.

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 must carry the burden — but it only explains `apply`. The meaning and interaction of options, profile, material, definition, object_name, operation_id, and material_name are left entirely undocumented, leaving most of the call surface to guesswork.

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 conveys that this tool inspects/proposes a material candidate by default and writes it when apply=true, and it scopes the write to owned candidate materials. It never states the resource plainly (apply a candidate material to an object), relying on the tool name to carry that, but an agent can still distinguish it from siblings like material_create_candidate or material_apply_profile.

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?

Explicit default behavior (inspect/propose) versus the apply=true mode is stated, plus a precondition workflow: material plan references for lifecycle calls, explicit channels/profiles, technical QA, controlled lighting, and visual review before acceptance. It gives clear when-to guidance, though it never names a specific alternative tool to use for the inspection-only path.

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