Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description gives one-line meanings for all three parameters, plus domain examples for shader_type ('noise, gradient, fresnel, etc'). This adds value but remains shallow – for example, it doesn't clarify what happens when material_name or object_name are omitted, or how shader_type values map to actual materials.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.