asset.apply_material

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

Annotations are all false (no hints), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the input is never overwritten and outputs go to a unique job subfolder, adding non-destructive context. It also implies a constrained modification ('only allow-listed'). This goes beyond annotations and is useful for an agent deciding to invoke the tool.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and critical constraints (target, formats, non-destructive behavior) are packed efficiently. Every clause adds value; no redundant information.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no helpful annotations, the description needs to be thorough. It covers key aspects (target, base_color, scalars, non-destructive output) but leaves ambiguity about which Principled BSDF values are 'allow-listed' and what happens for unspecified parameters. It also doesn't mention output file naming. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description is not complete enough for an agent to fully predict behavior.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains target (all, material name, or object name), base_color (normalized RGB/RGBA), and scalar values (0..1). However, it does not elaborate on input_path, output_directory, or the individual scalar parameters (alpha, metallic, roughness) by name, nor clarify their optionality/default null. It covers some parameters but not all, so it's partial.

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 states a clear action: 'Change only allow-listed Principled BSDF values and create new GLB, BLEND, and FBX files.' This specifies the verb, resource, and output format. It is distinct from sibling tools like material.list (listing) and asset.transform (geometry), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The mention of 'only allow-listed' adds specificity.

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 provides parameter-level guidance (target syntax, base_color format, scalar range) and implies the tool is for modifying materials, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclusions. No direct comparison to siblings is given. This is adequate but not explicit.

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