shader_link_nodes

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

Annotations provide only a title and no read-only or destructive hints, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Link two shader nodes' conveys that a connection is made, but it does not disclose whether existing connections are overwritten, whether socket types are validated, what happens on failure, or other side effects.

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 concise sentence with no filler, and the verb is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it achieves conciseness by omitting useful context.

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 five required parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. An agent gets no information about preconditions, valid socket names, material requirements, or consequences of linking.

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 only hints that linking happens 'by socket names,' which clarifies from_socket and to_socket but not material_name or how nodes are identified. The parameter names are self-descriptive to a degree, but the description does not compensate for the total lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Link'), a clear resource ('two shader nodes'), and the linking mechanism ('by socket names'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like shader_add_node, shader_remove_node, and geometry_nodes_link, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It does not mention, for example, that the material's node tree must already exist or that nodes must be present. Usage context is left entirely implicit.

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