Assign Material (Texture Tag)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It explains the creation/update mechanism and avoids manual parameter handling, but omits side effects (e.g., overwriting existing tags, permissions, or return value). The behavioral description is too minimal for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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?

Description is extremely concise: three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and key behavior. No wasted words. Benefits and projection aliases are listed efficiently.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and update behavior, but does not mention optional UV or restriction parameters. It is adequate but not fully complete; a summary of optional features or return value would improve it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds little: it repeats the projection enum values and references `update_if_exists`. It does not elaborate on parameters like `uv_tiles`, `uv_offset`, or `restrict_to_selection`. Baseline of 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 core action: 'Link a material to an object by creating a Texture tag'. It also specifies the update-if-exists behavior. No sibling tool duplicates this functionality, so it is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when to set `update_if_exists`, or compare to other material assignment methods. Usage context is only implied.

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