cst_create_anisotropic_material

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only says 'create' but does not specify if the material is stored in a project, requires an open project, or has any side effects. The burden is not fully met.

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 that are concise and front-loaded: first sentence states the action and parameters, second sentence provides use cases. No extraneous information.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete for a creation tool. It covers what the tool does and the key parameters. However, it lacks context about project dependencies (e.g., whether a project must be open) or return values.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a summary of parameter types (permittivity, permeability, loss tangent) but does not provide additional constraints, relationships, or examples beyond what the schema already contains.

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 tool creates an anisotropic material with per-axis properties, and mentions specific use cases (crystals, metamaterials, composite substrates). This distinguishes it from other material creation tools like isotropic materials (cst_create_material) or special materials.

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 lists typical applications but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., isotropic materials, ferrites). No 'when not to use' or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the name and parameters.

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