pbr_material_texture_normalizer

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the processing and validation outcome but does not mention input constraints, error behavior, payment/authorization side effects, or whether files are modified/returned. The parenthetical cost is useful but incomplete.

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?

One dense sentence states the core behavior and standard, and the cost is appended in a compact parenthetical. 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?

Despite rich domain context, the tool has a generic payload parameter and no output schema, so the description should explain what the agent must put in payload and what it can expect back. It does not, leaving essential execution details unspecified.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the generic payload and paymentSignature schema, but it does not need to because the schema already identifies both parameters.

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?

States a specific action ('Audits and packs') and resource ('PBR textures') with an exact output standard (ORM channels: R/G/B and sRGB validation). This clearly differentiates it from sibling texture/3D tools.

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 use when PBR textures need ORM standardization and sRGB validation, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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