Apply Materials

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: it is a proposal that needs Blockbench approval, it preserves artist-painted pixels, and it does not touch geometry or animations. That materially narrows the blast radius the agent would otherwise assume from destructiveHint. What is not disclosed is what happens if approval is denied, or how the approval is obtained.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two most decision-relevant constraints. Nothing is padded, though the 'Requires Blockbench approval' fragment could be tied more tightly to the action.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values. Given a destructive, approval-gated mutation, it covers the essential surprises: it is a proposal, artist pixels survive, geometry/animation are untouched, and request_id retry semantics are handled in the schema. Little an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 50%, and only request_id carries a description; the nested palette object (primary/secondary/eyes) is structurally well-defined with hex patterns but has no field-level prose. The description only gestures at 'recoloring the atlas' and adds no meaning about what each palette slot controls or how it interacts with preserved artist pixels.

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 (recoloring) and resource (VoxelFlow atlas) plus a scope constraint (preserving artist-painted pixels, no geometry/animation rebuild). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names or contrasts itself with the sibling apply_prop_materials, which appears to be the near-neighbor for props.

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 phrase 'Requires Blockbench approval' implies a prerequisite gate, and 'Propose' signals this is not an immediate commit. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no routing to a sibling (e.g. use apply_prop_materials for props instead).

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