rsap_define_material

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It provides substantial behavioral detail: precedence of 'from_database' over explicit properties, unit clarifications (Pa, N/m^3, RO as weight density), and naming of Robot's internal 'Kirchoff' property. It doesn't disclose what happens if the name already exists or if incomplete parameters are provided, but the disclosed quirks are highly valuable.

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 well-structured: a concise opening sentence followed by an Args block. Every line conveys necessary information, with no redundant text. The front-loaded purpose makes it easy to scan.

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 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers all parameters and critical behaviors. It lacks explicit guidance on required vs optional parameters (e.g., whether e/nu/ro/kirchoff are needed when from_database is omitted) and potential overwrite semantics, but the overall information provided is substantial and well-rounded.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter's meaning, units, and role. It even clarifies the 'from_database' precedence and contrasts RO (weight density) with mass density. This exceeds the schema's bare property names.

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 tool's purpose: 'Define a material label' and distinguishes two modes (from database or explicit elastic properties). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'assign_material' by focusing on creation/definition rather than assignment.

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 when to use the tool (when you need a material label) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't mention that you should use 'assign_material' to apply the label, leaving usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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