create_material

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

Annotations already indicate a destructive write operation, but the description adds no extra behavioral context such as name collision behavior, whether the material is automatically assigned to a selected object, or the effect on existing materials.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and lists the key properties without unnecessary words.

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 the destructive nature and 10 parameters, the description only lists properties and does not explain side effects (e.g., new material block creation, assignment behavior, or result when materials with the same name exist). An output schema exists but is not provided, so the description still needs to cover these gaps.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists most parameters (warna, roughness, metallic, emisi, IOR, alpha, transmission, blend mode) but omits the 'name' parameter and doesn't clarify the split between emission_color and emission_strength, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Description states 'Buat material PBR (Principled BSDF)' with specific properties (color, roughness, metallic, emission, IOR, alpha, transmission, blend mode), clearly indicating a create operation and distinguishing it from sibling tools like assign_material or list_materials.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions such as 'use assign_material to apply an existing material' or any prerequisites.

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