ap_material_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state two key side effects: creating a slot and making it active. However, it does not mention what happens to the previously active material, whether a return value/handle is produced, or how name collisions are handled.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence that communicates both the creation and activation behavior with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 is simple with a single fully described parameter, so the description is mostly adequate. However, since there is no output schema, an agent is left unsure whether the tool returns the new material's identifier or other data, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the 'name' parameter with 'Name for the new material,' and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond calling it a material slot, 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?

Describes a specific operation: creating a new material slot and activating it. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling material tools like ap_material_update, ap_material_delete, and ap_material_select, which handle different lifecycle stages.

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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, such as ap_material_update for modifying an existing material or ap_material_select for changing the active material. The intended context is only implied by the word 'create.'

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