Add material from library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context (the result is an FDS &MATL namelist) beyond the annotations. However, it is silent on what happens when the copy is repeated (idempotentHint=false suggests duplicates may accumulate) and gives no reversibility or naming-conflict guidance.

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?

One efficient sentence front-loads the action and result, with no filler. The appended bracketed rules line is terse and slightly cryptic (a placeholder '<id>' with no explanation of when to consult it), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description says nothing about the return value or the created object's identity, nor about duplicate-ID behavior. For a simple two-parameter creation tool with complete schema coverage this is adequate but leaves the post-call state underspecified.

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%, so both parameters (id, library_id) are fully documented in the schema, including the defaulting behavior of id. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Copy a material preset from the built-in library into the model as a &MATL.' The 'from the built-in library' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling add_material, which presumably creates a custom material. It is clear without opening the schema, though it does not name the sibling explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus add_material or add_surface_from_library. The only routing hint is buried in the appended 'SURF-001 — bulc_knowledge_search' rules reference, which points at an unrelated knowledge tool rather than explaining tool selection. The library_id dependency is documented in the schema, not the description.

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