production.material_create_pbr

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

Annotations already say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful context: default is inspect/propose, apply=true writes only owned candidate materials, and original slots/images/UVs/geometry/animation remain unchanged.

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 first clause is front-loaded and efficient, but the second sentence is a dense run-on covering lifecycle calls, technical QA, controlled lighting, and visual review. It is appropriately sized overall but could be structured more cleanly.

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?

For an 8-parameter, write-capable tool with zero schema parameter descriptions, the description leaves most inputs undefined. The output schema covers return values, but call construction still requires guessing about several parameters.

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. It clarifies apply, and hints at profiles/channels and material plan references, but does not explain profile, material, definition, object_name, operation_id, or material_name.

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 the tool's default mode and write condition, but never plainly says it creates a PBR material or how it differs from siblings like material_create_candidate or material_apply_candidate. An agent gets behavior but not a crisp resource/action distinction.

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 a default (inspect/propose) and the apply=true write condition, plus a process checklist ending in visual review. However, it does not name when to choose this over the many sibling material tools, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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