create_glass

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

The description lacks details about behavioral traits such as whether the tool creates a new material, modifies an existing one, assigns it to a selected object, or has side effects. There are no annotations to compensate, leaving the agent uninformed about the tool's impact.

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 concise with two sentences and no extraneous words. However, it could be slightly restructured to include parameter explanations without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the result (e.g., material node group created), how to assign it, or any necessary conditions (e.g., object selection).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only adds value for the 'ior' parameter by listing example values. It fails to explain 'name' (material name), 'color' (tint), or 'roughness' (frosted effect), leaving the agent to guess their purpose.

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 'Apply a glass/transparent material to an object' clearly states the verb (apply) and the resource (glass/transparent material). It distinguishes from siblings like create_metal and material_create_pbr by specifying a specific material type, though it could be more explicit about the exact operation (e.g., creating a material node group).

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 provides IOR values as reference but does not explicitly tell when to use this tool over alternatives like create_metal, material_create_pbr, or assign_material. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases is given.

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