Create Material

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutating nature is expected. The description adds context about the API endpoint and response code but doesn't discuss side effects, auth, or rate limits beyond what annotations already imply.

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 has some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'Create a new Material Entry' and 'creates a new Field Productivity records'), and includes API details that may not be essential for tool selection. It is clear but could be more streamlined.

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 create tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, success response, required parameter, and API context. It could mention the distinction from bulk creation, but is otherwise adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description only mentions project_id as required, adding no new semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it creates a new Material Entry, tying to Field Productivity. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'bulk_create_materials' by being singular, and specifies the HTTP 201 response.

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 notes it is for creating Field Productivity records and mentions required parameter project_id, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives like bulk_create_materials.

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