set_material

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it says the material drives mass properties and title block fields, requires an exact library match, and is read back after assignment so success means it applied. It does not cover failure modes or permission requirements, but it gives meaningful behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core assignment action comes first, followed by consequences, naming requirement, and verification. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 a nested input object and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values or optional parameter defaults. It covers the active-part scope, exact-name prerequisite, material effects, and verification, leaving only minor gaps around error behavior.

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%, so the nested material_name, database, and configuration parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the exact-name requirement and points to list_available_materials, but adds little beyond what the schema already says.

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 states a specific verb and resource: assigning a library material to the active part. The scope ('active part') and effect ('mass properties', 'title block Material field') make it easy to distinguish from read siblings like get_material or list_available_materials.

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?

It clearly gives the prerequisite that the material name must match the library exactly and routes the agent to list_available_materials to find it. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the write/assign context is clear enough against sibling read tools.

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