create_material

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'new empty Material asset', but does not disclose permissions, error handling, or what happens if the asset already exists. The tip about using 'execute_python' is helpful but not sufficient for a complete behavioral profile.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose, then detail the parameters and a usage tip. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and parameter meanings. It also includes a cross-reference to 'execute_python' for complex operations. However, it omits details on defaults, errors, or the return value, which would be expected for a creation tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'package_path' as the destination folder with an example, and 'name' as the asset name. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's titles and types. It could mention format or constraints, but it covers the basics well.

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 'Create a new empty Material asset', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling creation tools like 'create_blueprint' by targeting Material assets and suggesting using 'execute_python' for further wiring, which implies its limited scope.

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 context: it creates an empty Material, and then advises using 'execute_python' for wiring expression graphs. This implies a workflow and separates this tool from the more complex scripting tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or offer alternatives.

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