set_material

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

Annotations already disclose that the tool is non-readonly, destructive, idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the effect on mass properties and the need for an exact material name, but it does not mention that assigning a material may overwrite or destroy existing material settings.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core action, prerequisite, and downstream benefit are all presented directly.

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?

For a simple one-parameter mutation tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the target, the required exact-name prerequisite, and the reason to use it. The main gap is that it does not explicitly warn about overwriting an existing material, though the destructiveHint annotation covers that.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden for the single `name` parameter. It does so meaningfully by specifying that the value must be an exact material name and by pointing to list_materials, though it does not describe case sensitivity or formatting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it assigns a material to the active part. It also distinguishes the tool from related siblings by referencing list_materials for names and get_mass_properties for the downstream effect.

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 clear prerequisite guidance by saying to use an exact name from list_materials, and implies the tool should be used before relying on get_mass_properties. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or discuss alternative workflows.

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