add_shader_node

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

Annotations already declare the tool is mutating (readOnlyHint=false) and destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds no extra behavioral context—it does not explain what gets replaced, whether the node is auto-connected, or what happens with duplicate names. With annotations present, this lacks additional useful transparency.

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 an enumerative list, which is efficient. The trailing '...' is a minor flaw, but the sentence earns its place with a clear action and examples. Overall well-structured for its brevity.

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?

The description is too thin for a tool with 3 parameters and a destructive mutation. It lacks context about required material existence, post-conditions, and interaction with other shader node tools. While an output schema exists, the description still needs to articulate prerequisites and side effects.

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 partially covers node_type by listing possible values, but leaves name and material_name unexplained. The ellipsis truncation makes the list incomplete, and the purpose of the name parameter is entirely absent.

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 action (add shader node) and enumerates supported node types (bsdf_principled, bsdf_diffuse, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_shader_node or list_shader_nodes. However, it does not explicitly mention that it operates on a material, which is implied by the required material_name parameter.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., material must exist) or alternatives like connect_shader_nodes for wiring nodes. It simply states the action without contextual usage cues.

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