cst_assign_material

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning side effects, error conditions (e.g., non-existent solid), or whether the operation is reversible. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. It contains no unnecessary words, but could be slightly expanded for clarity without harming conciseness.

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 low complexity (2 required parameters) and no output schema. The description covers the basic operation but lacks details on what happens if the material does not exist, if the solid is invalid, or any confirmation of success. It is adequate but not complete.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates the solid format. The baseline is 3 since schema coverage is high and no additional semantics are provided.

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 the action (assign) and the resource (material to an existing solid in CST Studio). It also specifies the format for the solid reference as 'Component:SolidName', which distinguishes this tool from related tools like cst_create_material or cst_delete_material.

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 usage when you have an existing solid and want to assign a material. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creating a new material, modifying material properties), nor does it provide conditions for use or prerequisites.

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