mat_create_corona

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

Annotations already flag mutation/destructive behavior (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), and the description adds non-obvious behavior: the tool is conditionally available and returns class_missing when Corona is missing. It also notes optional post-creation object assignment via the objects parameter, giving an agent a fuller picture of side effects.

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 compact and front-loads the critical dependency warning in bold before the positive statement. The bilingual duplication is warranted for this audience and every sentence contributes usable 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?

For a two-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and mutation annotations, the description covers the main call condition, failure behavior, and assignment side effect. It does not describe the success return value, but this is a minor gap given no output schema and the simplicity of the operation.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond what the input schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 Corona material (CoronaMtl)', which clearly differentiates it from sibling material creators (mat_create_standard, mat_create_physical, mat_create_vray, etc.). It also scopes when the operation is applicable by noting the local Corona installation requirement.

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?

It gives explicit prerequisite guidance: only call when Corona is installed, 'probe before calling', and the failure mode ('returns class_missing') if the dependency is absent. It does not name alternative mat_create_* tools, but the installed-renderer condition makes the main selection rule clear.

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