cst_create_debye_material

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It explains the physical model but omits operational details such as whether the material is added to the project's material library, if it requires an open project, or any side effects. The description is scientifically informative but lacks operational transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose and model. It includes the formula efficiently without any extraneous information. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description provides the scientific model and typical uses but does not specify the return value or operational context (e.g., does it return a material handle?). It is complete in the domain sense but lacks practical context for an AI agent to anticipate side effects or prerequisites.

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 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds significant value by providing the Debye model equation, which clarifies the physical meaning of epsilon_inf, delta_epsilon, and relaxation_time_ps. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, aiding parameter understanding.

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?

Description specifies the verb 'Create', the resource 'frequency-dependent dielectric material', and the model 'Debye relaxation model'. The inclusion of the mathematical formula and application examples (biological tissues, water, polymers, soil) clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling material creation tools like Cole-Cole 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 mentions typical applications (biological tissues, water, polymers, soil) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cst_create_cole_cole_material or cst_create_drude_material. It lacks exclusions or comparative guidance, which is needed given the number of sibling material creation tools.

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