cst_create_ferrite_material

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

The description explains the physical model used (Polder tensor) but does not disclose side effects or operational behaviors such as requiring an open project, whether it overwrites existing materials, or any destructive actions. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and provides moderate 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 concise with three sentences. Each sentence serves a purpose: stating the action and model, listing typical applications, and providing a reference. No unnecessary words or 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 the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool does and the underlying physics. It provides sufficient context for selection. However, it could mention prerequisites (e.g., project must exist) or post-creation steps, but overall it is relatively complete for a material creation tool.

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 good parameter descriptions. The description adds value by providing the physical context of the parameters (gyrotropic permeability, Polder model), helping the agent understand the significance of parameters like saturation magnetization and linewidth beyond their syntax.

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 a ferrite material with a specific gyrotropic permeability tensor (Polder model). It distinguishes from other material creation tools by naming the physical model and providing context with typical applications and a reference.

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 use for ferrite materials requiring anisotropic magnetic response and mentions applications (circulators, isolators, phase shifters). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like other material creation tools, nor does it provide conditions or exclusions.

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