production.material_configure_transmission

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

The description adds real behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the default is a non-writing inspect/propose mode, apply=true is the write path, write scope is limited to 'owned candidate materials', and original slots, images, UVs, geometry and animation are preserved. That is consistent with destructiveHint=false and adds mutation-safety guidance the annotations alone do not convey. It could still say whether the write is reversible or what permissions/ownership checks apply.

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 core behavioral clause (default inspect vs apply=true writes) is front-loaded after the redundant name prefix, which is good. But the second sentence is a dense advisory run-on about QA, lighting and visual review that is workflow commentary rather than invocation guidance, and it dilutes otherwise compact 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?

Return values are covered by the output schema and safety posture by annotations, so the remaining burden is domain and parameter clarity. Given an 8-parameter, 0%-documented schema and a dense sibling family, the description leaves too much implicit about what 'transmission' configuration actually accepts and produces.

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 carry parameter meaning and it only partially does: it explains the apply flag's effect and gestures at profile/channel concepts and 'owned candidate materials'. It says nothing about options, definition, object_name, operation_id, or the distinction between material and material_name, leaving most of the surface 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 behavioral mode ('inspect or propose by default; apply=true writes only owned candidate materials') but never actually says what configuring transmission means or which materials it targets beyond the tool name. It sits in a large family of near-identical siblings (material_configure_emission, material_configure_opacity, material_configure_sss) and provides no differentiation other than the name suffix, so an agent must infer the domain from the identifier alone.

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?

The second sentence implies a workflow (use material plan references, explicit channels/profiles, technical QA, controlled lighting, visual review before acceptance) which hints at prerequisites, but it never says when to pick this over material_configure_emission/opacity/sss, material_inspect, or material_apply_profile, nor when not to call it. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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