set_material_property

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

The idempotentHint already covers repeat-safety. The description adds the list of valid property names but does not disclose failure modes, value constraints, or whether only Principled BSDF materials are supported. That is a modest addition beyond the annotation.

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?

Two short sentences, one action and one list; every token is functional and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, but the description omits value format details for color/vector properties and how the material is addressed. It is adequate for basic scalar properties but less safe for complex ones.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It supplies the only enumeration of valid `property` values, but leaves `material` and `value` semantics vague—no per-property value shape or material identifier conventions. This is partial but not full compensation.

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 identifies the operation (set) and the resource (Principled BSDF property), listing valid property names. This distinguishes it from sibling setter tools like set_light_property or set_world_property.

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 phrase 'Set a Principled BSDF property' establishes the tool is for modifying material shader properties, and the property list clarifies intended scope. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it, but the context is unmistakable.

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