mat_library_save

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

The annotations already mark the operation as destructive, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds behavioral context beyond the schema by explaining the omit-materials default behavior and the file-write target. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded and compact, with purpose stated first and the optional behavior second. The bilingual repetition is somewhat redundant, but it is structurally clear and not padded with unnecessary detail.

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 two-parameter save operation with a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the required path, the optional materials list, and the default behavior when omitted. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, even though no output schema is provided.

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 schema already documents both parameters fully. The description's omission guidance essentially mirrors the schema's materials description, adding no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific action (save) and a specific resource (.mat material library file), and clarifies the optional-materials behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from the complementary sibling mat_library_load.

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 provides a clear usage condition: omit materials to save all Material Editor slots. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the default behavior is well-communicated and the usage context is unambiguous.

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