blender_manage_material

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

The description discloses that the 'delete' action is 'destructive and irreversible,' which aligns with the annotations (destructiveHint: true). It also sets scope as 'For high-level PBR property editing only.' Since annotations already indicate destructiveHint and readOnlyHint, the description adds useful context about irreversible deletion and scope, but no contradictions.

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 concise: two sentences for purpose, followed by a clear usage section. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. The 'Do NOT use for' part is important and keeps it focused.

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?

Given the tool has 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: actions (create, edit, assign, etc.), scope (PBR only), and alternative tool. It lacks explanation of return values, but that's acceptable since no output schema exists. The description is sufficiently complete for an AI agent.

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 100%, and the input schema provides detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., base_color, metallic, roughness). The description does not add additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Create, edit, assign, duplicate, or delete materials. For high-level PBR property editing only.' It specifies the verb (manage) and resource (materials), and distinguishes itself from node-level editing by explicitly stating 'Do NOT use for: node-level shader editing.' This sets it apart from sibling tools like blender_edit_nodes.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you need to create/configure materials or assign them to objects') and when not to use it ('Do NOT use for: node-level shader editing (use blender_edit_nodes with tree_type=SHADER)'). This provides clear guidance on selecting this tool over alternatives.

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