add_material

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states an add operation without clarifying whether existing materials are replaced, whether a selection is required, whether the operation is idempotent, or what side effects occur. Permission needs and failure behavior are also unaddressed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no extraneous content, making it concise and scannable. However, the brevity appears to stem from under-specification rather than deliberate inclusion of all necessary details, so it earns high marks for structure but not for completeness.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no explanatory description, this definition is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The purposes of 'tag' and 'selection' and the expected content of 'material' remain unknown; while an output schema exists, it cannot compensate for missing input semantics.

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 offers only a weak hint that the 'material' parameter is the entity being added, while 'tag' and 'selection' are completely unexplained. An agent cannot determine the expected material format, how the tag is used, or what the selection string refers to.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Add a material to the model'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_sphere or add_block by the unique resource type. It does not explicitly call out differentiation from related tools such as add_physics, but the resource is specific enough for basic identification.

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 provides no guidance on when to use add_material versus alternatives such as add_physics or import_geometry. It does not mention prerequisites, ordering, or scenarios where this tool should be avoided, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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