blender_msfs_create_glass_material

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions creating a material but does not describe side effects (e.g., whether it replaces existing materials, applies to selected objects, or configures specific node trees). No return or error behavior is mentioned.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose and context without fluff, making it easy to parse.

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 description provides enough context for a basic understanding of when to call the tool (creating MSFS glass materials), but it lacks details about expected outputs, failure modes, or prerequisites (e.g., whether a selected object is required). Given the schema covers parameter formats, the overall context is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 descriptions for parameters are present and cover all attributes (ior, opacity, tint_color, is_windshield). The tool description does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to create a glass material optimized for flight simulator, with concrete examples (cockpit glass, windows). The verb 'create' and the specific domain make the intent unambiguous.

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 description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool compared to other material creation tools (e.g., blender_material_create, blender_msfs_setup_material). It lacks explicit conditions or alternative selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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