production.material_reject

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, and the description adds important context: the default is inspect/propose, apply=true writes only owned candidate materials, and original slots, images, UVs, geometry, and animation remain unchanged. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 sentence is front-loaded and useful, but the second is a dense process-oriented list that mixes lifecycle guidance, QA, lighting, and review without clear structure. It is not bloated, but it is uneven and leaves key facts implicit.

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 and annotations cover safety traits, but the tool has 8 parameters with zero schema descriptions and many lifecycle siblings. The description discloses the write boundary and preservation behavior but omits parameter meaning and sibling alternatives, leaving the agent under-equipped to invoke it 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 8 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It explains only the apply flag and vaguely mentions profiles, leaving options, material, definition, object_name, operation_id, and material_name undefined.

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 names the operation and distinguishes default inspect/propose behavior from apply=true writes, but it never explicitly states what is being rejected or how acceptance/review candidates relate. An agent can infer the purpose from the tool name, but the description alone is vague about the resource and outcome.

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 process advice about material plan references, QA, lighting, and visual review, but does not say when to use this tool instead of material_accept, material_review, material_refine, or other lifecycle siblings. The only clear usage distinction is the apply flag, not tool selection.

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