map_create_falloff

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

The description only says 'Create a Falloff map' and mentions two optional colours. It does not disclose what is affected, whether an existing material slot is overwritten, or what other side effects occur, despite annotations indicating destructiveHint=true. No behavioral context is added beyond the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action and resource. The bilingual duplication is unnecessary for meaning but not excessive, and the full text remains compact and readable.

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?

For a two-optional-parameter creation tool, the description gives the essential purpose and parameters. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the call returns, where the map is assigned, or what destructive side effects might occur, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent invoking a mutation tool.

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 100%, with both color1 and color2 already documented in detail, including [0-255] ranges and '#RRGGBB' string alternatives. The description adds only the summary phrase 'two optional colours,' which does not materially improve on the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Create a Falloff map' (创建一个衰减贴图). It also adds the distinctive use case 'commonly used for Fresnel edge effects', which clearly separates it from sibling map creation tools like map_create_bitmap or map_create_checker.

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 phrase 'commonly used for Fresnel edge effects' gives a clear contextual cue for when to call this tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the use-case context is sufficient for an agent to route to it.

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