material_create

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that creation occurs and gives a prerequisite for instances. It does not mention potential overwrites, permission needs, failure modes, or return values. For a mutation operation, this is insufficient transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundant words. Every sentence contributes essential information without padding.

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?

The tool has five parameters including a nested object for parameters, but the description gives no context about how those parameter values work, what constitutes a successful creation, or how to interpret errors. The lack of an output schema and annotations makes this brief description inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema already documents all five parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description's parameter hint ('Provide parent and type \"instance\"') duplicates what the schema already states for the parent field. Thus, the description adds no meaningful value beyond the schema, earning the baseline score.

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 the core action clearly: 'Create a new material or material instance.' However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool material_instance_create, which appears to have overlapping functionality. The verb and resource are specific, but the scope boundary is ambiguous.

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 instruction 'Provide parent and type \"instance\" for material instances' gives conditional usage guidance for instances. It implies when to use the instance path, but it does not mention alternatives like material_instance_create or when to prefer a plain material. This is implied usage, not explicit contextual guidance.

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