blender_set_shader_input

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

Annotations only signal that the tool is non-read-only and non-destructive, leaving the description to carry behavioral context. 'Set' communicates mutation and 'No guessing at socket indices' establishes name-based resolution, but the description does not state overwrite behavior, error conditions, or prerequisites such as node/material existence.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the anti-index instruction is compact, useful context that earns its place.

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 value-setting tool, the description plus schema covers the operation, required parameters, and the important name-based caveat. It does not describe return values or preconditions like an existing node graph, but the tool's low complexity makes those gaps less critical.

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 high at 80%, so the baseline is solid. The description adds meaningful parameter guidance beyond the schema by emphasizing name-based resolution and explicitly discouraging socket indices, though it does not elaborate on material identifiers or value formatting.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Set', and names the exact resource: one input socket on one node, selected by name. It is clear enough to distinguish from shader-graph creation or connection tools, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.

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 the use case: assign a single named input socket on an existing node. The phrase 'No guessing at socket indices' gives practical guidance to pass socket names, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like blender_connect_shader or blender_build_shader.

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