shading-set_principled

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Set...' without disclosing whether parameters are partially updated, what happens if the material lacks a Principled BSDF node, or how the target material is resolved from the object/material fields.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words or filler. It is appropriately concise for the stated purpose.

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?

The tool has seven optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description leaves material resolution, partial-update behavior, and failure modes implicit, so it is not complete enough for reliable agent invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and seven optional parameters, the description should compensate by explaining parameter semantics or target resolution. It only labels the parameters as 'Principled BSDF parameters', relying entirely on the input schema's titles for meaning.

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 a specific resource ('Principled BSDF parameters on a material'), making its function clear. It is differentiated from sibling tools like shading-set_node_input and shading-create_material.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as an existing Principled BSDF node or material, nor does it exclude cases where shading-set_node_input would be more appropriate.

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