cst_create_cole_cole_material

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

With no annotations, the description explains the physical behavior (broadening of relaxation spectrum via alpha) and model generalization, providing good transparency about what the tool does without mentioning side effects or destructive actions, which is adequate for a creation tool.

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 very concise: three sentences covering purpose, model generalization, and typical use cases. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and parameter significance. It does not specify return values or side effects, but for a creation tool, the context is largely sufficient.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds physical context (e.g., alpha range 0-1, relaxation time in ps) that enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 'Create a Cole-Cole dispersive material' and explains it's a generalization of the Debye model with alpha parameter. It also lists specific use cases (biological tissues, soil, broadband absorbers), distinguishing it from other material creation tools like Debye or Drude.

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 for materials with broadened relaxation spectra and lists example applications, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. other dispersive material models (e.g., Debye, Lorentz) or provide any when-not-to-use guidance.

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