create_glass_material

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It states the core functionality (creating a material with a Glass BSDF shader) but does not disclose side effects like whether it replaces existing materials, whether it assigns to an object, or how the node tree is configured. This is acceptable for a straightforward creation tool but lacks depth.

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 a single, clear sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise and easy to parse.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return values don't need explanation), the description lacks parameter semantics, usage guidance, and behavioral details essential for correct invocation. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation support, this is insufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 0% and the description mentions none of the parameters (ior, name, color, roughness). The schema itself provides defaults and types, but the description adds no semantic detail about how these parameters influence the material, leaving the agent to guess at their meaning and usage.

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 action (create), the resource (a material), and the specific type (Glass BSDF shader connected to the output). This distinguishes it from generic tools like create_material or set_principled_bsdf, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_material or set_principled_bsdf. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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