mat_create_physical

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

The description mentions optional assignment to objects, which is a behavioral side effect, and the annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. However, it does not elaborate on what the assignment overwrites or whether creation has other scene-wide effects. It adds limited behavioral detail beyond the schema and 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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence. It is slightly longer due to bilingual repetition, but each language version is concise and the extra context about being the default material is useful.

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 creation tool with all-optional parameters and a complete schema, the description is adequate but not exhaustive. It does not explain what the tool returns, what happens to existing material assignments when objects are specified, or explicitly compare with sibling material creators. These gaps are not critical but would improve completeness.

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 the parameters are already well-documented. The description names base color, metallic, roughness, and optional object assignment, but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 action: create a PhysicalMaterial, and specifies the PBR metal/roughness workflow. It also distinguishes itself from sibling material-creation tools by noting it is 'modern 3ds Max's default material', which helps an agent choose it over mat_create_standard, mat_create_arnold, etc.

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 gives useful context by calling PhysicalMaterial the modern 3ds Max default, which implies when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as mat_create_standard or mat_create_vray, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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