Edit shader live loop

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

The description discloses that the tool performs write/surgical replace actions (consistent with destructiveHint=true) and describes the additional behaviors of error inspection and optional preview. It adds context about using set_dat_content/edit_dat_content under the hood and the required environment settings, which go beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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 sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose and workflow (edit, inspect, preview). The second sentence adds necessary implementation and prerequisite details without verbosity. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clear.

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 high complexity (15 parameters) and no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive overview of the workflow, including the feedback loop, error inspection, and optional preview. It also mentions environment requirements. However, it does not explicitly describe the return format or what the response contains, which could be inferred from the parameters but would benefit from a brief mention.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 15 parameters, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. The description does reinforce the two modes ('write or surgically replace') and the preview feature, which aligns with the 'mode' and 'include_preview' parameters, but it doesn't add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 specifies the verb (edit), the resource (GLSL/Text DAT), and the scope: it writes or surgically replaces source text, inspects errors, and optionally captures an inline preview. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools like set_dat_content/edit_dat_content by emphasizing the immediate feedback loop, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (for an immediate shader feedback loop) and mentions underlying tools (set_dat_content/edit_dat_content) implying alternatives for raw editing. It also lists required environment variables as prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare with other preview-capture tools like get_inline_preview.

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