create_material_function

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral details. It only says 'create', without mentioning side effects such as whether the function is saved immediately, if existing ones are overwritten, or any permissions needed. The word 'reusable' adds minimal context but is inherent to the asset type.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words, making it concise and front-loaded. It is efficient, though it could arguably provide more substance without losing brevity.

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 simple tool (2 parameters, full schema coverage) and no output schema, the description adequately states the core purpose. However, the absence of annotations and behavioral context means the agent must infer what 'create' entails, such as saving behavior or overwrite policies, which could be ambiguous.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'name' and 'path'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 because the schema already documents parameters well.

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 uses a specific verb 'create' and identifies the resource as a 'reusable material function', which clearly differentiates it from siblings like create_material or create_material_expression by the asset type. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other creation tools. The description simply states the action without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the resource type.

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