plasticity_set_appearance_material

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it clarifies the change is scoped to display appearance only (not geometry) and that the whole operation consumes exactly one native Undo step. No return format or persistence caveats are given, but the impact and reversibility disclosure is genuinely valuable.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero waste; the three operational modes are front-loaded before the impact/undo note. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the modes and the destructive scope reasonably but omits the semantics of the two required parameters (ids, revision). It is adequate to attempt a call but not complete enough to guarantee a correct one.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain materialId 0 as the clear sentinel and ties color/roughness/metalness/opacity to the inline-appearance mode, which is useful. But the required 'ids' (what is being colored?) and 'revision' parameters, plus 'name' and 'intent', are left entirely undocumented, leaving material gaps.

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 (assign/create/clear) and resource (Plasticity appearance material) and enumerates the three distinct operating modes: assigning an existing material, creating an inline bounded appearance, or clearing via materialId 0. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling plasticity_list_appearance_materials without opening either schema.

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 three modes imply when each parameter combination applies (existing material name vs inline color/roughness/metalness/opacity vs materialId 0 to clear), which is useful implied guidance. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or names a sibling to route to, leaving the when-to-use decision to inference.

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