blender_material_procedural_preset

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the core effect: creating a material and generating a shader node tree. However, it does not state whether the material is assigned to an object, whether an existing material with same name is overwritten, or what the caller receives as a result. This is adequate but leaves important side effects implicit.

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 tight and front-loaded: it states the operation, the one-call advantage, the node-tree behavior, and then the preset names. The preset enumeration is long but operationally necessary, and there is no filler or repetition beyond that.

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?

All parameters are documented by the schema and the core behavior is clear, so an agent can invoke it. But without annotations or an output schema, the description leaves important context unspecified: assignment behavior, name-collision behavior, and return value. For a tool in a large material-related sibling group, these gaps make the definition only minimally complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains name, preset, color, scale, and wear_amount. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond repeating the preset list, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a precise verb+resource: create a complex procedural material from a named preset in one call. It also says the tool builds a full shader node tree, which clearly distinguishes it from material_create, set_principled, node_add, and other sibling material tools. The preset list reinforces what the tool produces.

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 phrase 'with one call' and 'builds a full shader node tree' gives an agent a clear context: use this when you want a ready-made procedural material without assembling nodes manually. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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