vfx_shader_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses optimistic concurrency behavior, that stale writes are rejected, the new hash is returned, and that verdict details include state and line:column problems. It does not cover permissions, side effects, or whether replacement is reversible.

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 compact and front-loaded: creation/replacement semantics first, then the hash requirement, then return behavior, then the prerequisite guide. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the mutation model, concurrency guard, returned hash/verdict, and prerequisite guide. The main remaining gap is that it does not discuss permissions or broader side effects.

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 67%, and the description fills the main gap by explaining that 'replaces' must be a hash from vfx_shader_read or the last write/edit, plus what happens if the hash is stale. Name and source are already described in the schema, so the description adds targeted value rather than repeating them.

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 states a specific verb and resource: creates a node or replaces one whole. The phrase 'replaces one whole' implicitly distinguishes this from partial editing via vfx_shader_edit, but it does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling tool.

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 clear context for replacement: you must pass a hash from vfx_shader_read or your last write/edit, and the write is skipped if the file changed. It also directs the agent to read vfx_guide first. It does not explicitly say when to use this versus vfx_shader_edit for partial changes.

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