mat_create_fstorm

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate mutation. It adds valuable context: the tool depends on FStorm installation and returns class_missing otherwise. This is beyond what annotations provide. However, it doesn't detail what 'destructive' means in this context (e.g., whether it overwrites existing materials), but the probe-first warning is useful.

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 concise sentences in both Chinese and English, with the critical usage condition front-loaded. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it creates, the prerequisite, and the failure mode. It doesn't describe the return value, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. The probe-first instruction is a strong addition.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the behavior of the 'objects' parameter (assign after creation; omit to skip), which is helpful but not extensive. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter details.

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 tool creates an FStorm material (FStormMtl), with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling material creation tools by naming the specific renderer plugin.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: only when FStorm is installed, and instructs to probe first. It also mentions the failure mode (class_missing) and the alternative behavior of returning an error, which helps the agent decide when to call it.

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