shader_add_node

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

With no safety annotations beyond a title, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a mutating operation ('Add') and gives no details about failure modes, prerequisites, duplicate node handling, or impact on the material's node tree.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core operation and gives useful examples without wasted words.

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 tool has no output schema, no meaningful annotations, and minimal parameter documentation. The description omits accepted node_type values, whether an existing material or shader tree is required, and what the caller should expect after execution.

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 parameters. It only provides example values for node_type and implicitly names the target via 'material'; location_x, location_y, and material_name semantics are left undefined.

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 clearly states the action ('Add node') and the target resource ('to material'), with concrete examples of supported node types. It is distinguishable from siblings like shader_remove_node and shader_link_nodes, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as shader_create_tree or shader_set_node_param. The intended context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling list, which is insufficient.

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