rsap_assign_material

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It states the action but does not explain whether existing material assignments are overwritten, what happens if the material name is invalid, or any side effects. The prerequisite hint about defining the material is the only additional behavior-related information, which is minimal.

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 and well-structured: one sentence for the purpose followed by a clear Args section. Every sentence contributes value—there is no fluff or repetition of schema details. The format is easily scannable.

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 simple assignment tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, how to provide each argument, and a necessary prerequisite. It does not address error behavior or overwrite semantics, but these are not critical for basic usage of this tool.

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 input schema provides only types and titles for the two parameters, with no descriptions. The description fully compensates by explaining material_name as the name of a material label defined with rsap_define_material, and bars as selection text with concrete examples ('1to20' or '1 2 3'). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 begins with 'Assign an existing material label to a set of bars,' which uses a specific verb (assign) and clearly identifies both the resource (material label) and the target (bars). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rsap_assign_section and rsap_assign_support through the explicit mention of material labels.

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 context by specifying that the material must be 'defined with rsap_define_material,' which communicates a prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a user to know when to apply this tool.

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