shader_create_tree

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

Annotations only provide a title, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses idempotency by saying 'Create if not exists' and exposes the destructive effect of clear_existing by stating it removes non-output nodes. Return values and error cases are not mentioned, but the key state-changing behavior is clear.

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 three brief sentences with no filler. The core create-if-needed behavior is front-loaded, and the parameter-specific note about clear_existing follows naturally. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential selection and invocation details: the resource, the idempotent creation behavior, and the clear flag's effect. It does not mention default true or material-not-found errors, but these are minor gaps for this 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. It clearly explains clear_existing by specifying what it removes. material_name is not described, but its meaning is obvious from the parameter name and the tool's purpose, so the two-parameter surface is adequately handled.

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 precise operation: ensure or create a material node tree. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like shader_get_tree or shader_clear_tree by its create-if-needed wording, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 when to use it: when a material needs to have a node tree, likely before adding or linking nodes. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, leaving an agent to infer routing from the sibling tool list.

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