create_material

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions that prim_path is auto-generated if not set and that certain parameters are PBR- or physics-only, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether an existing material at the path is replaced, whether the material is persistent in the stage, or what the return value represents.

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 compact, front-loaded summary followed by a clean bullet-style argument list. Each parameter line adds value with ranges or applicability notes, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 material-specific parameter semantics are well covered, and an output schema exists to define returns. However, the description lacks broader context around creation behavior, overwrite semantics, and the two generic execution parameters (command_id and idempotency_key), leaving some gaps for a 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 8 of 10 parameters with ranges, constraints, and type-specific applicability, including static/dynamic friction relationships. It omits command_id and idempotency_key, but the core material parameters are well documented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a PBR or physics material.' It clearly distinguishes between the two material subtypes and separates this tool from sibling getters/appliers like get_material and apply_material.

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 gives within-tool guidance by mapping material_type to 'pbr' or 'physics' and marking which parameters apply to each. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as apply_material or get_material, so usage context is implied rather than stated.

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