update_element_material

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

The annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only mutation, and the description's 'Change' wording is consistent with that, so there is no contradiction. It adds minor context about overwriting element material but does not disclose side effects, failure behavior, or validation details beyond referencing get_materials. Given that annotations cover the mutation/safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 well structured with an Args section and an example, and every sentence provides useful information. The bilingual repetition adds a little length, but the core guidance is compact and the example is directly relevant.

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 simple update tool, the description covers the essential input formats and tells the agent where to find valid material IDs. It does not mention return values or error handling, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema, but an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema provides 0% description coverage and ids has no declared type, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly defines the accepted id forms (int, list, or range string '1to50'), explains that mat_id is a new material ID, and references get_materials for valid values. The example reinforces the parameter semantics with a concrete call.

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 clear operation: changing the material of one or more elements, which is more specific than the bare tool name because it adds scope and the Chinese gloss. It distinguishes the target (material) from sibling update_element_* operations such as update_element_section or update_element_beta, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 implies the tool is used when an element's material needs to be changed, and it provides a useful prerequisite by directing the agent to use get_materials to find valid material IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives like update_element or update_element_section, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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