production.material_render_multilighting

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: the default is non-writing, writes are limited to owned candidate materials, and original slots, images, UVs, geometry and animation are untouched. It does not cover repeated-call behavior or what the write actually persists, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three sentences, no padding, but the first sentence wastes the opening by restating the tool name, and the remaining clauses are packed with undefined jargon ('plan references', 'explicit channels/profiles') rather than front-loading the core action.

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 need not be described, but for an 8-parameter tool with no per-parameter documentation the description should do more to explain how material/definition/profile/options combine and what the write commits. It covers the safety and workflow envelope adequately while leaving the invocation contract thin.

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 optional parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains only 'apply' and gestures at channels/profiles and 'material plan references,' leaving options, definition, object_name, operation_id, material and material_name undefined in both schema and prose.

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 indicates a render pass involving 'controlled lighting' and a 'real visual review,' and distinguishes an inspect/propose mode from an apply mode, but it never plainly states the core action (rendering the material under multiple lighting setups for comparison). The verb+resource pair is carried largely by the tool name, and the opening clause 'inspect or propose by default' describes a mode rather than the purpose.

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 clearly says the default is inspect/propose and that 'apply=true writes only owned candidate materials,' which gives the agent a concrete condition for choosing the writing mode. It also places the call in a workflow ('before acceptance', 'use material plan references for lifecycle calls'), though it names no sibling alternative such as material_render_preview or material_compare_before_after.

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