ac_material_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the crucial trait: nothing is written to disk and the change is lost on restart — behavior an agent cannot safely assume. It stops short of describing error handling for invalid property names or whether an existing override is replaced or merged.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the persistence caveat and followed by the one concrete format hint that matters. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage needs to define its parameters, and this one does not: an agent still cannot tell what 'filter' matches or which 'property' names are legal. The persistence caveat is excellent, but the calling contract is incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains 'value' (1-4 numbers, with a ksEmissive example). 'filter' and 'property' — two of three required params — get no explanation of expected syntax or valid property names, leaving most of the call under-specified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: override a material property, at runtime. The transient scoping is clear and implicitly contrasts with the sibling ac_material_get, but the description never names that sibling or any other alternative, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'at runtime only (lost on restart)' implies this is for temporary tweaks rather than persistent edits, which is a useful usage cue. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of pairing with ac_material_get to read back current values, and no warning about how to persist changes instead.

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