armorpaint_create_material

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

Annotations already signal this is not read-only or idempotent, and the description adds a concrete side effect: the material is both created and selected. It does not detail duplicate handling or whether the previous selection is replaced, but the main behavioral trait is disclosed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action and object without any filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easily scannable.

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?

For a simple one-parameter creation tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the essential behavior. It does not mention prerequisites like whether a project must be open or how duplicate names are resolved, but these are minor for this simple 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 schema only provides a parameter title 'Name' with 0% description coverage, so the description needs to compensate. It does so by connecting the value to a 'named PBR material', making it clear the string is the material's identifier. More constraints are not provided but are not critical for one obvious parameter.

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?

Description states a specific verb 'create' and resource 'named PBR material', plus the side effect 'select'. This clearly conveys the primary function and distinguishes it from selection-only tools like armorpaint_select_material, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 the tool is for creating and selecting a new named PBR material, which gives some usage context. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison with alternatives such as armorpaint_import_material or armorpaint_set_material_pbr.

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