Create a physical material item for a project via API. Requires materials:manage permission; quantities must be non-negative integers and responsibleId must be a project member.
新建物资条目。需 materials:manage 权限。数量字段须为非负整数；responsibleId 须为项目成员。 POST /api/projects/{id}/physical/items 项目由当前 API 密钥自动确定，无需传 projectId。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the required scope, the non-negative-integer constraint on quantity fields, the project-membership constraint on responsibleId, and that projectId is inferred from the API key. It still says nothing about what is created or returned.
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?
Four short lines, front-loaded with the action, then prerequisites, then validations, then the endpoint and the projectId note. No filler; the only mild redundancy is restating the endpoint path.
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 destructive create with a large nested payload and no output schema, the description covers the operational essentials (permission, key constraints, auto-scoped project) but leaves most of the body fields and the response behavior unexplained.
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 0% against a nested body with ~14 fields, so the description must compensate. It partially does — quantity constraints, responsibleId membership rule, and the explicit note that projectId is unnecessary — but the required name/categoryId and the other fields (unit, status, location, tags...) remain undocumented in both places.
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+resource ('新建物资条目' = create a physical/materials item), which cleanly separates it from the get/patch/delete siblings on the same resource. It stops short of naming a sibling for contrast, but the create semantics are 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?
Gives a prerequisite ('需 materials:manage 权限') and field validity rules, which implies when the call can succeed, but never states when to choose this over e.g. anon_post_physical_categories or the patch/log siblings. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.