mat_create_vray

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description is not burdened with stating mutation. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool depends on V-Ray being installed and returns class_missing otherwise. This is exactly the kind of runtime precondition an agent needs to know.

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 purpose, followed immediately by the critical installation prerequisite and error behavior. The bilingual duplication is compact and each sentence contributes essential information. No filler is present.

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 no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential context: what it creates, when it is available, what happens when it is not, and a recommended probing step. It does not describe overwrite behavior or return values, but these are less critical given the annotations and schema coverage.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema: name is the material name and objects are the objects to assign after creation. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it relies on the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: '创建一个 V-Ray 材质（VRayMtl）' / 'Create a V-Ray material (VRayMtl).' This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling material creators such as mat_create_standard, mat_create_physical, and mat_create_arnold. The tool's scope is unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: only when V-Ray is installed, and it warns that calling it otherwise returns class_missing. It also instructs the agent to 'probe before calling.' It does not explicitly name a fallback alternative tool, but the availability condition is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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