set_material_function_input

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool modifies properties, but does not mention side effects, permissions, error conditions, or undo behavior. The parameter explanations add some transparency, but deeper behavioral context is missing.

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 structured with a brief introductory sentence followed by a well-organized list of parameters. It is not overly verbose, though the parameter list is detailed. Could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient.

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?

Given 8 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description covers all parameters with useful hints (e.g., node_index from get_material_function_info). It lacks information on error handling or constraints, but for a modification tool it is reasonably 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage (no schema-level descriptions). The description compensates fully by explaining every parameter, including type and meaning (e.g., 'New pin name', 'New type (Scalar/Vector2/...)', and an example for preview_value).

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 clearly states the tool modifies an existing FunctionInput node's properties, using the verb 'Modify' and specifying the resource ('FunctionInput node'). It distinguishes from sibling 'add_material_function_input' which adds a new input, and 'set_material_function_output' for outputs.

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 implies usage for modifying an existing input node, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. It lacks exclusions or prerequisites, though the clear contrast with sibling 'add' tools is helpful.

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