ap_material_select

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral details, but it only states the core effect: the material becomes active. It does not mention what happens to the previously active material, error handling for nonexistent names, or whether this affects the current selection context or viewport.

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?

A single concise sentence with no wasted words. The verb, target, and lookup mechanism are all front-loaded and immediately understandable.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the purpose and input are adequately conveyed. However, the description omits failure behavior and return semantics, leaving the agent to infer what happens before or after the material is set active.

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 schema already documents the single parameter 'name' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the name must refer to an existing material, but it adds no new format, value constraints, or additional parameter context.

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 action and object: 'Make an existing material active, by name.' It clearly distinguishes this from material creation, deletion, listing, assignment, and get-active sibling 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 phrase 'existing material' implies the tool is not for creating materials, so usage context is partially conveyed. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools like ap_material_create, ap_material_get_active, or ap_material_assign.

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