update_material

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that only provided parameters are changed (others remain unchanged) and that material_id is the selector and not modifiable. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or whether the update is irreversible. This is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 well-structured: a concise summary followed by a parameter list and return specification. Every section adds value. While a bit lengthy, it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, and return value. It explains the partial update behavior. Missing are error conditions (e.g., if material_id doesn't exist) and prerequisites. Overall, it is largely complete for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema.

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 0%, so the description compensates fully. It documents each parameter with units, default behavior (None leaves unchanged), and clarifications (e.g., emissivity is a fraction). This adds significant value beyond the schema, which lacks parameter descriptions.

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 'Update thermophysical properties of an existing material', using a specific verb ('update') and resource ('material'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'add_material' (create) and other update tools (e.g., 'update_compartment') by focusing on material properties.

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 implies that this tool is used to modify properties of an existing material, as opposed to creating one (use 'add_material'). It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, but the context of sibling names makes the usage fairly clear.

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