Apply a KeyShot material

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true), and the description adds that the tool saves the edited scene. This is useful context beyond the raw annotation. However, it does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects such as file overwriting specifics, potential errors, or prerequisites. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and workflow. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

The description, combined with the fully detailed schema and output schema, provides sufficient context for understanding the tool's function. It covers the core workflow (apply material, save scene) without needing to explain return values. Minor gaps such as explicit failure modes or prerequisites are not critical given the schema richness, but a bit more behavioral context would make it fully complete.

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 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all six parameters, including the distinction between objectName and objectPath and materialName and materialPath. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 holds.

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 specific action: applying a KeyShot library material or local material file to a specific object, followed by saving the scene. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like keyshot_apply_material_preset (which applies a preset) and keyshot_save_scene (which only saves). The verb 'apply' and resource 'material' are precise and unambiguous.

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 mentioning 'library material or local material file,' which hints at when to use this tool versus the preset-based alternative. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusionary guidance. The context is not fully developed, so it falls short of a 4.

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