production.material_performance_report

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

The description directly contradicts the annotations: annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, while the description says apply=true writes only owned candidate materials. Although it adds safety context about unchanged slots, images, UVs, geometry, and animation, the write behavior conflicts with the read-only annotation.

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 relatively short and front-loads the default inspect/propose behavior. However, the second sentence is a dense, jargon-heavy run-on covering many separate concerns without clear structure.

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?

The tool has seven undocumented parameters and a complex inspect/propose/write lifecycle, but the description only covers the apply mode and some pre-acceptance cautions. Output schema presence reduces the need to explain return values, but parameter and mode completeness remain weak, especially given the annotation contradiction.

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 explains apply=true and vaguely alludes to profiles/channels and owned candidate materials, but it leaves material, material_name, object_name, definition, options, and profile semantics largely 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 that the tool inspects/proposes by default and can write owned candidate materials with apply=true, but it never explains what a 'material performance report' actually evaluates. It also does not clearly distinguish itself from close siblings such as material_quality_report, material_review, or material_validate_pbr.

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 some implied usage guidance: default to inspect/propose, use apply=true to write owned candidate materials, and perform lifecycle/QA/lighting/visual review before acceptance. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over sibling report or inspection tools.

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