Create Material

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

Annotations indicate mutability and non-destructiveness. The description adds behavioral context by stating an 'associated shading group' is created, which is not covered by annotations. No contradictions. However, it does not detail side effects like connections or node creation beyond the material.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys the main function and key options.

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 three parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers the main purpose and the shading group creation. It does not explain the return value format, but the output schema handles that. Missing details like default material_type or color format are covered in schema. Slight gap: no mention of what happens if name is omitted (auto-naming).

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 has 100% description coverage. The description adds value by explaining the 'associated shading group' concept, which is not in the schema. It also reiterates the optional color parameter, but the schema already describes that. Overall, it enriches understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create', the resource 'material', and lists the valid types (lambert, blinn, phong, standardSurface). It also mentions the associated shading group and optional color, making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like assign_material.

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 description implies usage for creating materials but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like assign_material or set_material_color. No exclusions or guidance on prerequisites (e.g., required scene state) are given.

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