material_create_pbr

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

No annotations exist, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only lists parameters and their ranges, but does not mention what happens when created (e.g., storage, side effects, if it modifies existing materials).

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 concise docstring with a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value, and it is well-structured with no wasted words.

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 has 10 parameters and no output schema. The description covers parameters well but lacks information about return values, prerequisites, or side effects, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 coverage, the description adds crucial meaning for all 10 parameters, including ranges, examples, and clarifications (e.g., metallic 0-1, roughness 0-1, ior values). This goes well beyond the schema's minimal info.

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 it creates a custom PBR material with full control, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like material_create_preset.

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 hints at full control but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like material_create_preset or set_material. No exclusions or context provided.

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