production.material_apply_profile

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only but non-destructive mutation, and the description adds real context beyond that: the default is non-writing, apply=true limits writes to owned candidate materials, and original slots, images, UVs, geometry and animation are untouched. It stops short of permissions, idempotency or side-effect details, so 4 is appropriate.

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 key behavioral distinction is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. The second sentence is a dense run-on of process advice (lifecycle references, QA, lighting, visual review) that partially earns its place but is not tightly scoped.

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?

With an output schema present and safety annotations supplied, the description covers the critical default-versus-apply distinction and the non-destructive scope. However, for an 8-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage, it leaves what 'owned' means, prerequisite state, and most parameter usage unexplained.

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 parameter burden. It explains only the `apply` flag; the other seven parameters (options, profile, material, definition, object_name, operation_id, material_name) receive no meaning, format or relationship guidance.

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 concrete verb-and-resource pair (apply a profile to materials) and clarifies the default inspect/propose behavior versus apply=true writing owned candidate materials. It does not differentiate itself from the close sibling material_apply_candidate or material_create_profile, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 useful default-mode guidance ('inspect or propose by default') and names the flag that switches to writing, but it never names an alternative tool or an explicit condition for choosing this over material_apply_candidate. The second sentence reads more as acceptance prerequisites than as tool-selection guidance, leaving selection largely implied.

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