cst_create_drude_material

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it creates a Drude material; it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing materials, permissions required, or how the material is stored). The formula is informative but insufficient for agent understanding of the operation's impacts.

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 two sentences: purpose followed by formula. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description adequately explains the creation purpose and model. However, it does not cover post-creation behavior (e.g., return value, whether the material can be assigned) or prerequisites. For a simple creation tool, this is minimally viable but could be more complete.

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 schema covers all three parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds value by providing the Drude model formula, which connects the parameters (plasma_freq_ghz, collision_freq_ghz) to their physical roles (wp, gamma). This context goes beyond the schema's basic naming, earning a score above baseline.

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 Drude metal model material for plasmonic and metamaterial simulations. It specifies the verb 'Create' and the resource 'Drude metal model material'. The formula and typical usage (gold, silver, aluminium) distinguish it from other material creation tools like Debye or Lorentz models, which have different mathematical forms.

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 free-electron metals in optical/THz ranges by providing the Drude model formula and examples. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools (e.g., cst_create_debye_material) for different material behaviors. The guidance is adequate but indirect.

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