production.material_create_profile

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description explicitly states 'apply=true writes only owned candidate materials', a direct contradiction of the read-only annotation. The added context about unchanged slots/images/geometry is useful, but the contradiction dominates.

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 description is short and roughly front-loaded with the default-vs-apply behavior, but it opens by restating the tool name and packs vague directives ('controlled lighting and a real visual review') that add bulk without actionable information.

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 no explanation, but a 7-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and a write mode deserves far more parameter and lifecycle detail than one dense sentence provides. The read-only/write conflict further undermines completeness.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only touches 'apply' and obliquely references 'channels/profiles', leaving material, definition, options, object_name, and material_name entirely 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 restates the name and clarifies that the default mode is inspect/propose while apply=true writes candidate materials. That gives a rough sense of intent, but it never explains what a 'profile' is or how this differs from siblings like material_apply_profile, material_create_candidate, or material_validate_profile.

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 offers fragmentary hints ('use material plan references for lifecycle calls', 'real visual review before acceptance') but names no concrete alternative tool nor a clear when-to-use-vs-when-not condition. Routing to material_apply_profile or material_validate_profile is left entirely to inference.

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