remove_shader_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Remove' implying destructive action but does not disclose consequences like reversibility, side effects on node tree, or error states (e.g., node not found).

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 concise with a single-sentence purpose followed by structured Args and Returns. It is front-loaded and efficient, wasting no words.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool, the description covers the basic operation but lacks context on error handling, prerequisites (e.g., node must exist), and the structure of the confirmation dict. It is adequate but incomplete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description adds meaning. It labels parameters as 'Name of the material.' and 'Name of the node to remove.', which is clear but adds little beyond the property names. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it provides basic clarity.

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 clearly states the verb 'Remove' and the resource 'shader node' from a 'material's node tree', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_shader_node, connect_shader_nodes, and disconnect_shader_nodes.

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?

The description implies usage for removing a shader node but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like disconnect_shader_nodes, nor does it mention prerequisites or edge cases.

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