update_material

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

The description only repeats 'update' which is already implied by the tool name. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., whether partial updates are supported, what happens on failure, or if it returns the updated object).

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 redundant information. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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 an output schema and the tool's update nature, the description fails to provide essential context such as return value, error behavior, or permission requirements. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's impact.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 'Update a material.' clearly states the verb and resource, matching the tool's name. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'update_material_group' or 'create_material'. While not a tautology, it is minimal and does not explain the scope or specific 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_material or delete_material). There is no mention of prerequisites, required permissions, or context where this tool is appropriate.

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