aedt_assign_material

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It implies mutation (assigning a material) but does not disclose important behaviors such as whether the material must exist, whether assignments are overwritten, or whether the operation can be undone.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but overly terse. It front-loads the core action but lacks structural elements (e.g., bullet points) that could convey more information without losing conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description still feels incomplete. It omits crucial context like prerequisites (object must exist, material must be defined), error handling, and typical usage order relative to other AEDT tools.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate. It clarifies that 'assignment' refers to objects and 'material' is a material name, but it does not explain the accepted formats (string vs array) or any constraints (e.g., material must be from library).

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 action ('Assign'), the resource ('AEDT material'), and the scope ('one object or many objects'). It is distinct from sibling tools like aedt_materials_operation which handle broader material management.

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., aedt_materials_operation, aedt_material_object_summary). The description only states the action without context for selection.

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