godot_create_shader

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions creation behavior but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it modifies project files, error handling, or what happens on failure. The 'overwrite' parameter hints at file replacement, but the description doesn't elaborate on consequences like data loss or validation. For a file creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes key details (file type, project context, creation methods). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (6 parameters, file creation operation) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the what and how but misses behavioral aspects like error conditions, permissions, or output details. For a creation tool without structured safety hints, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'starter template or explicit shader code', which relates to the 'shader_code' parameter, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create'), the resource ('.gdshader' file), and the context (inside Godot project). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying shader creation rather than nodes, meshes, scripts, or other project operations. The mention of 'starter template or explicit shader code' adds specificity.

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 when a shader file needs to be created, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'godot_attach_script' or 'godot_add_node'. It mentions the two creation methods (template vs. explicit code), which provides some context, but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or comparisons to sibling tools.

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