Create a Shellac material to add layered coat effects, with optional assignment to objects for immediate application.
创建一个 Shellac（虫漆）材质，用于叠加涂层效果。 [English] Create a Shellac material for layered coat effects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | 材质名称。 | Material name. | |
| objects | No | 创建后赋给这些对象；省略则不赋值。 | Assign to these objects after creation; omit to skip. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds no extra behavioral detail such as whether an existing material is overwritten or what happens when assigning to objects, but it does not contradict 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 compact and front-loaded, stating the action and purpose in two short sentences across both languages. There is no filler or redundant elaboration.
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 creation tool with two optional, fully documented parameters, the definition is mostly sufficient. However, it does not clarify what happens when 'name' is omitted, whether the tool returns a handle to the created material, or what specifically makes the operation destructive.
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%, with both 'name' and 'objects' already described. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides, so the baseline 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 clearly states the verb ('Create') and the specific resource ('Shellac material'), and adds the purpose 'layered coat effects'. It does not explicitly compare against sibling material-creation tools, but the material type is distinct enough to identify the operation.
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 'for layered coat effects' implies when this tool is appropriate, giving some usage context. However, it does not state when to choose Shellac over alternatives like Blend, nor does it provide any exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.