add_shader_node

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and parameters; it does not mention side effects, whether the node is created unconnected, failure behavior if the material is missing, or idempotency. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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: a one-sentence operation summary followed by a tight Args list. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant prose or repetition of the schema.

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 is adequate for basic invocation: the core parameters are explained and the action is clear. However, without annotations or an output schema, it misses important context such as whether the new node is connected, whether the material must pre-exist, and what a successful call returns. This leaves it minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the Args section compensates well by explaining material_name, node_type with concrete examples, the [x, y] location format, and the optional name label. This adds real meaning beyond the raw schema, though it stops short of enumerating all valid node types or units.

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 and resource: 'Add a shader node to a material's node tree.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like connect_shader_nodes and set_shader_node_value by focusing on the creation of a new node rather than wiring or modifying one.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as connect_shader_nodes, set_shader_node_value, or create_material. It implies that you use it when you want a new shader node, but it does not state prerequisites (e.g., the material must already exist) or exclude related tools.

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