export_smart_material

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load; it does disclose two real behavioral facts: output is confined to SP_MCP_EXPORT_ROOTS (a sandbox constraint) and the material is 'verified'. It says nothing about what 'verified' entails, whether existing files are replaced, or what failures look like — notable given the 'overwrite' parameter exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the constraint on output location is stated up front. It is tight rather than padded, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a file-writing export tool with no annotations and four undocumented parameters (0% coverage) the definition leaves key questions open: which group uid refers to, what happens when overwrite is false and the target exists, and how 'verified' is determined.

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 compensate, and it barely does: 'a group' loosely implies uid identifies a group, and the export-roots clause constrains output_directory. Nothing explains what 'name' names, what 'overwrite' does, or the format of uid.

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 names a specific verb ('Export'), a specific source object ('a group') and a specific artifact ('a verified Smart Material'), plus a hard output boundary (SP_MCP_EXPORT_ROOTS). That is enough to distinguish it from siblings like export_smart_mask, export_textures, export_mesh and export_with_profile, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 rather than export_smart_mask or export_textures, no prerequisites, and no note on whether the group must already be selected or created. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and the word 'Export'.

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