create_material

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

Annotations only indicate not read-only and not destructive, and the description simply restates that it creates a material. There is no disclosure of side effects, required preconditions, validation behavior, or what happens on invalid input. With no annotations providing safety context, the description should carry more behavioral detail.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently lists parameter semantics. The bilingual repetition adds some length but remains structured and scannable. Every sentence carries useful information; no filler.

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 straightforward creation tool, the description covers the essential invocation details: all parameters, the enum meaning for mat_type, and the custom properties requirement when mat_type=5. It lacks a short usage example or clarification of how standard and database interact, but is otherwise complete for a 5-parameter tool with no output schema.

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 provides only titles with no descriptions, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by explaining every parameter, including the enum values for mat_type, the default behavior of standard, the meaning of database (with examples), and the exact structure of data_info for custom materials. This is far beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Create a material in the bridge model'), which clearly identifies the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like create_section or create_polygon_section, but the resource 'material' is distinct enough from sections and elements.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description implies it is for creating materials with standard databases or custom properties, but an agent gets no help deciding between this and related creation tools.

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