create_procedural_material

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what the tool constructs (coordinate mapping, texture node, color ramp, Principled BSDF) and enumerates the pattern options, which is useful. However, it omits whether the material is assigned to the selected object, whether it overwrites an existing material of the same name, and whether a selection is required — significant gaps for a creation 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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a brief node-composition summary and a compact args list. The structure is logical and the length is appropriate for a 7-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions. The args block is slightly redundant with the schema but earns its place by adding semantics.

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?

With 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers parameters well but leaves gaps around the return value (nothing is stated about what the tool returns), assignment behavior (does it assign the material or only create it?), and preconditions (selected object requirement). These are material for correct invocation of a complex creation tool.

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 compensate, and it does: all 7 parameters are documented. The pattern field lists the full enum set (NOISE, VORONOI, MUSGRAVE, WAVY, MAGIC, checker, marble, wood, cloud, gradient, veins, plasma) and color fields specify the [R, G, B] format. The scale/detail/roughness entries are terse but adequate.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Create a complete procedural material with node graph in one call') and distinguishes itself from node-level siblings like add_shader_node and connect_shader_nodes by emphasizing the one-call complete-graph approach. It also differs from create_material by specifying what the graph contains (coordinate mapping, texture node, color ramp, Principled BSDF). This gives an agent enough to tell it apart from its many material-related siblings.

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 implies usage (choose this for a procedural material vs apply_image_texture for image textures) but never states when to use it versus alternatives or when not to. No explicit mention of the sibling tools that cover individual nodes or preset materials. Usage must be inferred rather than directed.

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