update_elastic_material

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the original file is preserved, but it does not describe permissions, whether the modification is reversible, what parts of the material are altered, or what the operation returns.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. The preservation constraint is front-loaded alongside the core action, though the wording 'into a fresh deck' could be clearer.

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?

For a mutation tool with six required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It states the basic action and one side-effect constraint but leaves parameter semantics, invocation context, and most behavioral details unaddressed.

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 has six required parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no meaning for model, material_id, density, young_modulus, poisson_ratio, or units. An agent gets no additional parameter guidance beyond the bare property names and types.

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 names a specific verb (Modify) and resource (elastic material) and distinguishes the operation from creating a new material, though the phrase 'into a fresh deck' is slightly awkward. It does not explicitly name or compare itself to the sibling create_elastic_material.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_elastic_material or inspect_keyword_deck. The phrase 'preserve the original file' hints at a non-destructive update scenario but does not state when that scenario applies or what prerequisites exist.

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