production.material_status

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

The description says apply=true writes candidate materials, which directly contradicts the readOnlyHint=true annotation. Although it adds useful context about unchanged slots/images/UVs/geometry/animation, the write/read-only conflict is a serious transparency failure.

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 purpose and apply behavior are front-loaded, and the statement about unchanged assets is useful. It is reasonably concise, though the workflow sentence about lighting and visual review is somewhat tangential to invoking this specific tool.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and an annotation contradiction, the definition is not complete enough for reliable invocation. The output schema means return values need not be explained, but most parameter semantics and the read/write ambiguity remain unresolved.

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% for 7 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It explains apply=true meaning and hints at owned candidate materials, but leaves options, profile, material, definition, object_name, and material_name essentially 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?

States a specific verb and resource: inspect/propose material status by default, and apply=true writes candidate materials. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as material_inspect or material_apply_candidate.

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 default inspect/propose mode and apply=true write mode imply when the tool is used, and it mentions lifecycle references, QA, lighting, and visual review. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions against the many sibling material tools.

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