production.material_validate_pbr

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

The description does add real behavioral value: it discloses the default dry-run/propose mode, that apply=true is the only write path and is limited to owned candidates, and that original slots, images, UVs, geometry and animation are untouched. However, this directly conflicts with the declared readOnlyHint=true, leaving an agent unsure whether a mutation is possible and creating a safety-profile ambiguity.

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?

It is short and front-loads the mode/write behavior, which is good. But it opens by restating the tool name (zero-information token), and the second sentence is a dense run-on mixing prerequisites, QA steps, and review advice without structure.

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 explained, but for a 7-parameter, zero-required tool with no schema descriptions the definition is too thin. An agent cannot tell what to pass for definition/options/object_name or how material vs material_name differ, and the mutation semantics vs readOnlyHint are 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% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it only partially does: apply is explained clearly and "explicit channels/profiles" hints at the profile parameter. Definition, options, object_name, material_name and material are never mentioned, leaving half the surface undocumented anywhere.

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 conveys the two modes (inspect/propose by default, write when apply=true) and that the write is scoped to owned candidate materials, but it never says concretely WHAT PBR property is validated or how it differs from close siblings like material_validate_profile, material_validate_normals, and material_analyze_pbr. The verb+resource is inferable from the name only.

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 workflow context ("use material plan references for lifecycle calls", "before acceptance") which implies this is a pre-acceptance gate, but it never says when to pick this over the more specific validate_* siblings. The guidance reads as a list of good practices rather than a routing rule.

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