cst_create_material_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only lists physical properties. It does not state what happens on creation (e.g., whether an existing material is overwritten), what permissions are needed, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical efficiently groups related properties. It is appropriately concise, though the extreme brevity contributes to the missing parameter and usage information noted elsewhere.

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?

Given nine parameters, no annotations, and low schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. It omits most parameters, usage context, and behavioral details, while only the output schema relieves it of explaining return values.

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 must explain all 9 parameters, but it only names four concepts (permittivity, permeability, conductivity, loss tangent) and does not map them to specific parameter names like epsilon, mue, sigma, or tan_d. Parameters such as rho, colour, tan_d_freq, material_type, and the required name are entirely unaddressed.

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 verb (Define) and resource (material) and lists the key physical properties being set. The word 'explicitly' hints that this differs from loading a library material, but no sibling such as cst_load_material_from_library_tool is named to make the distinction 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cst_load_material_from_library_tool. 'Explicitly' weakly implies manual definition, but the description provides no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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