blender_material_node_add

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Add' and that location/input values are optional; it does not describe what happens if the material is missing, the default behavior when location is omitted, whether existing nodes are affected, or what the tool returns.

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?

Two focused sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by useful node type examples. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 node-creation tool, this is largely complete: it defines the action, target, supported node types, and optional settings, while the schema covers all parameter formats. It only omits minor operational details such as default placement and return behavior.

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%, so parameter meaning is already fully documented. The description adds only light context, such as 'optionally set location and input default values' and a few node type examples, but does not provide substantial 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?

States a specific action ('Add') and resource ('a shader node to a material's node tree'), and clarifies it handles any Blender node type. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling material tools like creation, assignment, or texture presets.

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 intended use case is implied by the action and the 'any Blender node type' statement, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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