layout_node_tree

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, but it only states the outcome ('auto-arrange') without revealing side effects. It does not disclose that node positions are overwritten across the entire tree, whether the operation is undoable, or what happens for materials without a node tree.

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?

A single eight-word sentence that front-loads the actionable verb and contains zero filler. Every word contributes meaning, and nothing in the description is redundant with the schema.

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?

The tool is low-complexity (one required string parameter, no enums, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description is close to adequate. However, because this is a mutating operation with zero annotations, the omission of side effects and prerequisites leaves an important gap for correct invocation.

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 schema itself offers no explanation of the material parameter. The phrase 'a material's node tree' implies that material identifies the target material, which is minimal but real compensation, yet the expected format (name, path, or ID) and behavior for missing materials remain unspecified.

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 names a specific verb ('auto-arrange') and resource ('nodes in a material's node tree'), clearly conveying what the tool does. It is reasonably distinct from siblings like set_node_position (manual positioning) but does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_node_position or the many other node-tree tools. There are no stated prerequisites (e.g., the material must exist and have a node tree) and no exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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