blender_build_shader

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false etc.), the description discloses that socket names follow real Blender naming so manual knowledge transfers, and that graph construction is resilient—errors are reported per node rather than failing the whole graph. It does not cover all side effects, but the annotations already place the bar lower.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying information: purpose, use case, naming compatibility, and error behavior. No filler, front-loaded.

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 complex node-graph builder, the description covers purpose, when to use it, naming semantics, and failure behavior, while the schema covers all parameters. It does not specify return format or side effects on existing materials, but annotations and schema compensate enough.

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 100% and already documents the meaning of nodes, links, assign, and response_format. The description reinforces real Blender socket naming but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb and resource ('Build an arbitrary shader node graph from a declarative description') and immediately frames it as the full-control path, distinguishing it from preset-based shader material tools among the siblings.

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?

It provides an explicit condition ('when a preset is not enough') and explains advantages (full control, real socket names, per-node error reporting), but it does not name the alternative preset tools or explicitly say when not to use it.

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