remove_shader_node

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as irreversibility, effects on the node graph, or error conditions, beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely brief, but this brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It does not even specify the material context, which could be inferred from the parameter but is not stated. There is no structure or supplementary information.

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 the tool's destructive nature and two required parameters, the description is insufficiently informative. The agent has no context about how to identify node_name, what happens to the material, or what the tool returns. The presence of an output schema (not shown) does not mitigate the lack of description-level guidance.

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?

The description mentions no parameters. The schema includes material_name and node_name but provides no descriptions, and the description does not explain what these refer to. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without semantic guidance for the parameters.

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 'Hapus node shader' is Indonesian for 'Remove shader node,' which directly restates the tool name without adding specificity about which shader node or material context. It does not distinguish from siblings like add_shader_node or list_shader_nodes, making it a tautology.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as having a material selected or needing to list shader nodes first, nor does it indicate exclusions.

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