mat_library_load

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

Annotations only signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it fills empty Material Editor slots and returns material names, clarifying the mutation scope. It does not cover failure behavior when no empty slots are available, but the disclosed side effects are substantive.

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 action and side effect. The bilingual repetition adds length but is not excessive and preserves the key details.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and a destructiveHint=true annotation, the description adequately covers the main side effect, return value, and intended use case. It omits edge cases like missing files or what happens when no empty slots exist, but is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The only parameter, 'path', is already fully described in the schema as '.mat material library file path'. The description adds no format, resolution, or validation details beyond the schema, 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 uses a specific verb ('Load'), identifies the resource (.mat material library), and explains the exact effect: materials are placed into empty Material Editor slots and a name list is returned. This clearly distinguishes it from mat_library_save and related material creation tools.

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 explicitly frames the tool as 'the standard way to reuse a studio's existing look-dev,' giving a clear when-to-use context. It does not mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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