production.material_create_candidate

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description adds genuinely new context: the default is inspect/propose (no write), apply=true scopes writes to 'owned candidate materials' only, and originals (slots, images, UVs, geometry, animation) remain unchanged. That is exactly the kind of consequence-of-calling information annotations cannot express. It omits idempotency behavior and operation_id replay semantics, so not a 5.

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 leading 'material_create_candidate:' restates the tool name and is wasted text. Front-loading of the dry-run default is good, but the second sentence degenerates into a run-on list of process admonitions ('material plan references... explicit channels/profiles, technical QA, controlled lighting and a real visual review') whose referents are vague.

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 explained, and the dry-run/write split is covered. But for an 8-parameter, zero-coverage, non-idempotent write-capable tool, an agent still cannot tell what most inputs do or what makes a call safe to retry. Adequate, but with clear gaps.

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 compensate, and it only fully explains apply. The words 'channels/profiles' loosely hint at the profile/options parameters, but material, definition, object_name, material_name and operation_id are never given meaning anywhere. Partial compensation for a low-coverage schema, not full.

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 first clause states a specific verb+resource pairing: it inspects/proposes by default and only writes owned candidate materials when apply=true. This tells an agent the tool has a dry-run mode and a write mode, which is more than the name conveys. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as material_create_profile, material_create_pbr or material_apply_candidate, so it stops short of 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?

The second sentence gives process guidance ('Use material plan references for lifecycle calls... technical QA, controlled lighting and a real visual review before acceptance'), which implies this tool sits early in a candidate→review→accept flow. However, it never names the alternative tools (material_apply_candidate, material_accept, material_reject) or states when NOT to call it, so the routing remains inferred rather than explicit.

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