add_shader_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but discloses little beyond the basic add operation and return shape. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., material must exist, node tree must be active), error behavior, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 front-loaded, uses structured Args and Returns sections, and avoids unnecessary prose. The Returns section is slightly redundant given the output schema, but it does not bloat the definition.

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 tool is a simple mutation, and the description covers parameters and output. However, given no annotations and many sibling node-creation tools, it lacks usage context and behavioral details (e.g., prerequisites, side effects) that would help an agent invoke it correctly.

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 explain parameters. It does so for all three: material_name, node_type (with an example), and location (format and default). This meaningfully compensates for the empty schema descriptions, though it omits that node_type must be one of the enum values.

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+resource combo: 'Add a shader node to a material's node tree.' This clearly states what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like add_texture_node or add_geometry_node, which could also add nodes to trees.

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 only lists arguments and return values, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and siblings.

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