femm_material_load

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses exact-match requirements, that a miss returns suggestions, and that fallback_to_suggestion loads the best match and reports it in 'renamed'. It doesn't state whether existing materials are overwritten or whether an open document/session must pre-exist.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the matching constraint and then the error/fallback behavior. Three dense sentences with concrete examples and no filler; every clause adds actionable information.

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?

No output schema or annotations, yet the description covers purpose, exact-match semantics, error behavior, fallback, and downstream usage of 'renamed'. Minor gaps remain (overwrite behavior, session default, prerequisites), but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains 'names' (exact FEMM 5 strings with examples) and 'fallback_to_suggestion' (behavior plus a concrete M-19 Steel -> M-19 14 mil example). The 'session' parameter is only implied via 'the session's physics'.

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 verb+resource+destination: copy materials from the FEMM 5 library into the current model. This distinguishes it from siblings like femm_material_search (find), femm_material_get (read one), and femm_material_add (define new). The parenthetical xi_getmaterial ties it to the underlying API.

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?

Gives clear context: load materials 'for the session's physics' and use the resulting names in femm_add_block_label, and explains the fallback workflow when a name misses. It stops short of explicitly contrasting against femm_material_search/get, so it's clear context without named alternatives.

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