cst_create_material

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

The description lacks details on side effects or prerequisites (e.g., whether a project must be open, if it overwrites existing materials, or what the return value is). Given no annotations, the description should disclose more behavioral traits.

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, direct, and to the point. No unnecessary words.

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?

While the description covers core functionality, it lacks context about the type of material (isotropic, frequency-independent) and potential implications. With 10 parameters and no output schema, more context would be beneficial.

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 merely lists the parameter types but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 new material with electromagnetic properties and lists the key properties (epsilon, mu, loss tangents, conductivity). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like cst_create_anisotropic_material or cst_create_debye_material, which might create materials with different behavior.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not state that this is for simple isotropic materials, nor does it suggest using other tools for frequency-dependent or anisotropic materials.

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