game_visual_shader

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

Annotations lack readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so description bears full burden. It indicates mutation ('add/connect/disconnect') but doesn't reveal side effects, required permissions, or whether operations are reversible. Missing details on how the graph interacts with the scene or shader resource.

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?

Single sentence with no redundancy; front-loaded with the main action. Could be slightly more structured to improve readability, but overall concise and to the point.

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?

Given 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain the graph editing model, how actions chain together, or the significance of the shaderId and shaderType parameters. The agent lacks enough context to use the tool effectively.

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%, with each parameter described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies. No extra context on parameter relationships or constraints.

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?

Description clearly states the verb ('Create and edit') and resource ('VisualShader graphs'), and lists key actions (add/connect/disconnect nodes). It provides a clear purpose but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'manage_shader' which may handle shader resources more broadly.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., existing shader resource) or exclusions (e.g., not for simple shader parameter changes). The agent must infer usage from context.

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