add_height_mask_node

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

Annotations establish mutation, non-idempotence, non-destructiveness, and local scope. The description discloses the crucial non-obvious behavior: despite the name, no wired chain is built, the SmoothStep Value input is unconnected, and failure to wire WorldPosition Z leaves a constant mask. It also directs use of expression_id/note to locate the pin and advises re-reading the graph as the oracle.

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?

Front-loads purpose in the first sentence, then develops the wiring gotcha, usage step, and return shape. It is dense but every sentence contributes necessary information; no filler.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({ material_path, expression_id, min_height, max_height }) and explains the critical post-call step of connecting WorldPosition Z. Together with annotations covering the safety profile and the schema covering parameters, the definition is complete for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including world-unit bounds and the effect above/below the bounds. The description adds the mapping ConstMin=min_height / ConstMax=max_height and an intuitive snow/sand example, but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: dropping an altitude-mask node (SmoothStep preset) into a material graph, with concrete min/max semantics and example use (snow above a line, sand below). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling mask-node tools such as add_slope_mask_node, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

Provides a clear use case (blending a layer by height) and a critical prerequisite: the SmoothStep Value input remains unconnected, so the agent must wire WorldPosition Z via connect_material_expressions. It does not state when not to use this tool or compare against alternatives like add_slope_mask_node.

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