manage_aov

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the mutation set (ADD/REMOVE), the write mechanism via Output AOV nodes, and that Render Layers gains a matching output, which is genuinely useful. It does not say what REMOVE does to existing nodes that reference the name, whether names must be unique, or whether changes affect the open file state.

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?

Front-loaded with the action set, then context, then Args/Returns sections. Every paragraph earns its place, though the material/Output AOV paragraph could be tightened by a sentence.

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 3-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the domain concept, the node integration, param conditions, and shape of the return. The main remaining gap is REMOVE's side effects on referencing nodes, which is a real behavioral omission.

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 Args block is doing real work. It adds conditional applicability the schema cannot express: name is only meaningful for ADD and REMOVE, and type only for ADD. It omits that type defaults to COLOR and that name is nullable, but the conditional mapping is the highest-value information.

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?

States specific verbs and resource ('List, add or remove shader AOVs') and immediately defines the domain object ('custom render passes written by materials'). No sibling tool covers AOVs, and the description makes the scope unmistakable.

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?

Explains the intended context ('Use for masks and IDs in compositing') and how an AOV is produced (an Output AOV node with aov_name set to this name). It doesn't state explicit exclusions or name alternatives, but there are no near-equivalent siblings to route against.

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