create_shader_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action and lists common types; it does not mention failure behavior for invalid material or type, how location defaults work, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The type list is relevant and not padded; there is no redundant or verbose content.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description omits key contextual details: prerequisite material existence, distinction between material/shader trees and geometry/compositor trees, and where to find the complete type list. An agent can make a basic call but may fail without those implicit assumptions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds a useful list of common `type` values, but it leaves `material`, `name`, and `location` semantics unexplained (e.g., that material is a material name, location is a 2D coordinate). This is partial compensation only.

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 an explicit action ('Add a shader node') with a specific resource ('a material') and enumerates common valid node types. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_shader_node, connect_shader_nodes, and geometry/compositor node creation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., material must exist, node tree must be enabled), and no pointer to list_shader_node_types for the full type catalog. Usage is only implied by the tool name and verb.

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