shader_arrange_nodes

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

The annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain that node positions are modified, whether an existing shader node tree is required, whether the operation is UI-only, or what happens if the material is missing. For a mutating 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 a single, front-loaded phrase with no redundant words. It is appropriately terse for a simple utility, though the clipped style contributes to under-specification that is penalized in other dimensions.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no meaningful annotations, the description leaves too much unstated: which nodes are arranged, whether a shader node tree must already exist, what effects the arrangement has, and how errors are surfaced. The agent can infer the basic target from material_name but not enough to invoke it confidently in edge cases.

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%, and the description does not mention material_name at all. The parameter name and title are reasonably self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify details like whether it refers to the material data-block name or requires an existing material with a node tree.

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 action ('auto-grid arrange') and object ('nodes'), and the shader_ tool name plus material_name parameter identify the target as a material's shader node tree. It is distinct from sibling operations like adding, removing, linking, or setting parameters, though it does not explicitly say 'shader' or 'material' in the description itself.

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 given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many related sibling tools such as shader_link_nodes, shader_clear_tree, and geometry_nodes_*, the description does not explain prerequisites, when arranging nodes is appropriate, or when another tool would be a better choice.

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