production.material_quality_report

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

The description explicitly states 'apply=true writes only owned candidate materials', which is a mutation, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false unconditionally. The write-scope detail ('only owned candidate materials') and the no-side-effect claim about slots/images/UVs/geometry/animation are useful, but they directly conflict with the declared read-only profile, so the agent cannot trust either signal.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the mode distinction, which is good. But the opening 'material_quality_report:' merely restates the tool name, and the second sentence is a dense run-on of enumerated process nouns that reads as boilerplate rather than actionable instruction.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but for a 7-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage the description leaves most inputs unexplained and provides no lifecycle route to the related material tools. Combined with the read-only annotation conflict, an agent lacks enough to invoke this correctly.

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 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: only 'apply' gets real semantics (write mode, ownership scope) and 'profile'/'channels' are gestured at obliquely via 'explicit channels/profiles'. 'material', 'definition', 'object_name', 'material_name' and 'options' receive no explanation at all.

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 identifies the resource (a material quality report) and the two modes (inspect/propose by default, write candidate materials when apply=true), but it never says what the report actually evaluates or how it differs from close siblings such as material_review, material_performance_report, material_validate_pbr or material_inspect. An agent is left inferring which of the many material QA tools to pick.

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 is a noun-phrase list ('material plan references... explicit channels/profiles, technical QA, controlled lighting and a real visual review before acceptance') rather than conditional guidance. 'Before acceptance' hints at sequencing relative to material_accept, but no alternative tool is named and no when-not condition is given.

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