production.material_configure_sss

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: default is non-writing, apply=true writes only owned candidate materials, and original slots/images/UVs/geometry/animation remain unchanged. It does not contradict the annotations, but it still leaves the exact SSS configuration effects unexplained.

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 default-vs-apply behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence. The middle sentence is a dense procedural list, but the description remains compact and mostly purpose-driven.

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, return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety flags. However, for an 8-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the description is not complete enough to guide correct parameter usage beyond apply.

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 parameter meaning. It explains only apply; the roles of options, profile, material, definition, object_name, operation_id, and material_name remain undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 action pattern: inspect/propose by default and write when apply=true. The resource is identified by the tool name (SSS material configuration), though the prose does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling material_configure_* tools.

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 clear usage context: default to inspection/proposal, use apply=true for writes, and perform technical QA and visual review before acceptance. It does not explicitly name when to choose this over material_configure_emission/opacity/transmission, but the operational context is present.

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