create_material

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states creation and parameter meanings, omitting side effects (e.g., overwriting existing materials at a prim_path, resource implications, or error conditions).

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 concise and well-structured, with a short introductory sentence followed by a bullet-like list of args. Some repetition ('PBR only' on multiple lines) could be tightened, but overall efficient.

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?

The description covers parameter meanings and defaults but does not mention return values (despite an output schema existing) or behavior when prim_path conflicts. For a 5-param tool with 0% schema coverage, this is adequate but has gaps.

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 0%, so the description fully explains each parameter, including valid ranges (color 0-1, roughness 0-1, metallic 0-1) and which parameters apply to which material_type. This adds significant meaning 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 'Create a PBR or physics material', specifying the verb and resource, and distinguishes between two material types. This is unambiguous and different from sibling tools like apply_material.

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 explains when to use each material type (PBR vs physics) and notes that prim_path is auto-generated if not set. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, though siblings are clear.

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