cst_create_lossy_metal

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains the physics ('finite conductivity skin-effect losses') but does not disclose side effects, whether it overwrites existing materials, prerequisites, or potential errors. Key behavioral aspects are missing.

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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action, then adds contextual value. Every sentence earns its place.

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's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description adequately explains what it creates and why. It is nearly complete, though it could mention the result (e.g., material added to the project). Still, it meets the needs for this level of complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds general context but does not elaborate on parameter usage (e.g., how to choose mu or conductivity). It does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 lossy metal material' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling material creation tools by specifying 'lossy metal' and provides typical application contexts (connectors, waveguides, PCB traces).

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 cases for loss calculations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cst_create_material or cst_create_drude_material. No when-not-to-use or exclusionary guidance is provided.

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