production.material_validate_height

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

The description says 'apply=true writes only owned candidate materials,' which directly contradicts the readOnlyHint=true annotation. This is a serious inconsistency that misleads the agent about whether the tool mutates state. Although it adds useful context about unchanged data, the contradiction dominates.

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 three sentences with some front-loading of the default behavior and apply flag, but the middle sentence is a dense run-on list of workflow steps. It is not excessively long, but it could be better structured to separate purpose, usage, and side effects.

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?

Given 7 undocumented parameters, an output schema, and annotations that contradict the description, the definition is incomplete. It omits what height validation checks, how to interpret the result, and most parameter meanings, leaving the agent without enough context to call 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 coverage is 0% for 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only touches on apply and indirectly profile, but leaves options, material, definition, object_name, and material_name completely unexplained. Most parameters receive no semantic guidance.

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 restates the tool name and adds that it inspects/proposes by default and can write with apply=true, but it never explains what 'height' validation actually checks or how it differs from siblings like material_validate_normals or material_validate_pbr. The core purpose remains vague beyond the tool name.

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 mentions using material plan references, explicit channels/profiles, technical QA, controlled lighting, and a real visual review before acceptance, which implies workflow context. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over the many alternative material validation tools, nor does it give explicit exclusions.

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