armorpaint_select_material

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description must explain what selecting a material changes and what side effects occur. It only says 'select,' which is minimally informative and does not disclose whether a project must be open, whether selection affects later operations, or how invalid IDs are handled.

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 with no filler. It conveys exactly what the tool does and nothing more.

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 very simple operation and presence of an output schema, the description is close to adequate. However, it omits practical context such as prerequisites, the effect of selecting a material, and the meaning of edge-case IDs, which matters because annotations do not clarify behavior.

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%, so the description must add meaning. 'Stable ID' clarifies that material_id is a persistent identifier rather than a runtime index, but it does not explain how to obtain a valid ID or what the minimum value of -1 represents.

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 states a specific action ('Select'), an exact resource ('material'), and the key distinguishing detail ('by its stable ID'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like select_object and select_layer.

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 about when to use this tool versus related material tools such as create_material, import_material, delete_material, or set_material_pbr. The intended context is implied rather than stated.

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