Add material

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the purpose: it does not say what happens if the ID already exists (rejected vs overwritten), what validation applies, or what result is returned, all of which matter for a non-idempotent create.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the purpose is in the first clause, before the bracketed metadata. The second sentence is terse but useful as a procedural pointer, so little is wasted, though the placeholder notation is opaque.

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 5-parameter create tool with no output schema, the definition plus full schema coverage and annotations is minimally sufficient to invoke it. It is nonetheless incomplete on duplicate-ID behavior, success/failure feedback, and the relationship to update_material/remove_material, which an agent would need in order to use it correctly in a workflow.

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 100% with units supplied inline (kg/m³, W/m·K, kJ/kg·K, emissivity range), so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is the expected baseline 3 when the schema is complete.

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 pairs a specific verb with a specific resource ('Add a material definition (MATL)') and names the FDS namelist it maps to, so an agent immediately knows this creates a material object. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as add_material_from_library, update_material, or remove_material, which an agent must infer from names alone.

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 only guidance is a cryptic bracketed rule reference ('SURF-001 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"'), whose placeholder is ambiguous and which never states when to use add_material versus add_material_from_library or update_material. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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