set_shader_node_input

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that the tool sets the default value, that connected sockets ignore it, and what the return value contains. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., permanent modification of the material) or any required permissions, making it slightly incomplete.

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 and well-structured. It starts with a clear summary, provides context with examples, details parameter constraints in a organized Args block, and ends with the return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, usage conditions, parameter details, and return format. No additional context is necessary for accurate selection and invocation.

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%, and the description adds extensive meaning: it explains each parameter's role (material_name, node_name, socket with index option, value with allowed types), why socket can be an integer (ambiguous names), and how to format colors and vectors (2-4 component list). This far exceeds the schema which only provides types.

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 action: 'Set the default value of an unconnected input socket on a shader node.' It provides concrete examples (Noise 'Scale', Principled BSDF 'Roughness') and distinguishes from sibling tools like connect_shader_nodes by explicitly mentioning that connected sockets ignore the set value.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'This is how you dial in a procedural texture.' It also explains when not to use it (when socket has a link) and how to handle it ('disconnect it first'). Additionally, it advises using index for ambiguous socket names, e.g., Math node's 'Value' inputs.

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