production.material_configure_opacity

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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: the default is a safe inspect/propose, apply=true is the write path, writes are scoped to 'owned candidate materials', and original slots/images/UVs/geometry/animation are preserved. This is consistent with destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false. It adds useful safety/scope detail the annotations don't convey.

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?

Two sentences with the safe-default/write distinction front-loaded, but the second sentence is dense with vague process jargon ('explicit channels/profiles', 'controlled lighting and a real visual review') that costs space without adding concrete, actionable meaning.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the safe-default vs write behavior plus non-destructive guarantee are covered. But for an 8-parameter, mutation-capable tool with 0% schema coverage, the near-total absence of parameter guidance and sibling differentiation leaves it only minimally complete.

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 coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only explains the 'apply' flag's default/write semantics. Material, profile, definition, object_name, material_name, operation_id, and options are all undocumented anywhere.

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 clarifies the two modes (inspect/propose by default, write on apply=true) for configuring opacity, but the core purpose 'configure opacity on a material' is carried by the name alone. It does not differentiate this from close siblings like material_configure_emission, material_configure_sss, or material_configure_transmission.

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 workflow context (use material plan references for lifecycle calls, do technical QA, controlled lighting and a real visual review before acceptance) and says the default is non-writing. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus the other material_configure_* variants or how to choose a profile/channel.

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