delete_shader_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the basic destructive action ('Remove a node') and does not disclose side effects such as breaking incoming/outgoing connections, whether removal is undoable, or whether the node must exist for the call to succeed.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. The action and target are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 small two-parameter destructive operation, the description is minimally sufficient: an agent can infer the material and node parameters and what the tool accomplishes. However, it omits behavioral consequences like connection handling, which matters for a delete operation in a node graph, so it is not fully 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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter details. It does not explain what format 'material' and 'node' should take (names, IDs, paths, etc.) or how they are resolved. The parameter names are self-explanatory at a high level, but the description adds no semantic depth beyond the schema itself.

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 ('Remove') and a clear resource ('a node from a material's node tree'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. It also implicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_geo_node or delete_comp_node by scoping to the material node tree.

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 one-liner implies the use case: call this when a node should be removed from a material's node tree. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it, nor does it mention related alternatives such as disconnect_shader_node for preserving links or simply unplugging the node.

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