armorpaint_set_material_pbr

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

The description disclosed an important behavioral side effect: existing links to those channels will be disconnected. This goes beyond the provided annotations, which only indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior. It does not explain how omitted/null parameters behave or how material selection works, but the core mutational consequence is clear.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core action plus side effect are front-loaded. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 9-parameter mutation tool, the description is thin on how the target material is selected (material_id default -1), what happens when parameters are null or omitted, and whether only provided channels are updated. The output schema exists, so return values are less critical, but the missing targeting/null semantics leave gaps.

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 is responsible for parameter meaning. It adds one useful detail: color uses RGBA values in the ArmorPaint material UI. The other channel parameters are self-explanatory by name and have min/max in the schema, but material_id semantics and the meaning of null/default values are left undefined.

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 ('Set'), a clear target ('constant PBR channel values'), and a distinguishing side effect ('disconnecting existing links to those channels'). This differentiates it from related graph-manipulation tools like armorpaint_set_node_value or armorpaint_connect_nodes, even without naming them.

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 phrase 'constant values' and 'disconnecting existing links' implies this tool is for replacing texture-linked PBR inputs with fixed values, but it never explicitly says when to use it over siblings such as set_node_value or connect/disconnect_nodes. No when-not or alternative guidance is given.

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