create_material

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: property names are validated against PLAXIS 2D V22 and are case-sensitive, and 'Identification' renames the material's path for all future operations.

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 with the core purpose and then provides necessary detail. Some redundancy exists between the parenthetical example and the later sentence about PLAXIS property names, but overall it is compact and information-dense.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, this description covers all the necessary usage context: placeholder vs. fully specified creation, property name validation, case-sensitivity, and the 'Identification' renaming side-effect that affects future calls. No critical gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well: it explains the 'properties' parameter shape, acceptable value types, name matching, case sensitivity, and the special 'Identification' behavior. The 'kind' parameter is left to the schema enum, which is sufficient given its simplicity.

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 begins with 'Create a material set' and clearly distinguishes creation from usage by explaining placeholder versus usable materials. It also ties to sibling tools by noting that later calls like assign_material must use the resulting path.

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 clear guidance on when to omit properties vs. provide a full property map, and explains the consequence of using 'Identification' for later calls. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but the context strongly implies this is the material creation step.

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