tex_material

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, no idempotent/destructive hints), so the description carries the burden. It discloses the important behavioral trait that this step deliberately skips .emat creation, which is valuable sequencing info. However, it doesn't mention whether overwrite behavior is destructive, what happens to existing staged files, or whether the operation is reversible — gaps for a mutating tool with no annotation coverage on safety profile.

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 dense paragraph that packs a lot of information but is not front-loaded or scannable. It buries the overrides example (the most schema-compensating content) at the end. The German terminology mixed with English makes parsing harder. It's efficient in word count but poorly structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool has 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, so completeness burden is high. The description covers the pipeline stages and the overrides format, plus the critical .emat sequencing note. But it omits return behavior (contact sheet format?), error conditions, and meaning of half the parameters. Given 7 params and no schema enrichment, this is only partially complete — adequate but with notable gaps.

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 for parameter meaning. The description does explain the 'overrides' parameter with a concrete example ({'roughness.base_rough': 0.5}) and dotted-path semantics, which is genuinely helpful. However, it provides no explanation for the other 6 parameters (source, preset, addon_dir, name, sub_path, overwrite), leaving the agent to infer them from names alone.

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 what the tool does: it processes a source texture end-to-end through presets (metall/stoff/foliage), packs to Enfusion formats (BCR/NMO/Opacity), and stages atomically into the addon with a channel contact sheet. However, it heavily uses German technical jargon ('Quelltextur', 'atomar ins Addon gestaged', 'Kanal-Kontaktblatt') that may reduce clarity for English-speaking agents, and it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like tex_emat or tex_generate in the purpose statement.

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 clear sequencing guidance: it explicitly states it does NOT write .emat and instructs that tex_emat should be called after workbench import creates .edds files. This gives strong when-to-use and what-to-do-next context. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like tex_generate or tex_inspect for specific exclusion scenarios, though the pipeline framing makes the flow reasonably clear.

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