shader_global_manage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that set_global updates runtime values, add_global defines parameters in ProjectSettings, and remove_global removes definitions, which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose side effects, persistence behavior, error conditions, or whether operations affect the running project immediately, which would be valuable for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 well-structured with a clear header, a bulleted list of operations, and a concise note about the canonical call shape. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and each operation is described in one line. The only minor inefficiency is the slightly redundant phrase 'Global Shader Parameters, Uniform Variables, and Project-Wide Shader Settings' which could be tighter, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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 has an output schema and a moderate complexity level with four operations. The description covers the operations and their parameters, but it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus shader_manage, and it does not describe return values or error behavior. Given the output schema exists, return values are less critical, but the missing usage differentiation and behavioral details leave some gaps.

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 the schema's lack of parameter documentation. The description does explain the op-specific parameters (name, value, type) in the operation list, but it does not clarify the format of 'value' (e.g., type coercion, accepted types) or the meaning of 'type' beyond a default of 'float'. The canonical call shape is explained, but the parameter semantics are only partially covered.

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 identifies the tool as managing global shader parameters, uniform variables, and project-wide shader settings, and enumerates four specific operations (list, set, add, remove). It distinguishes itself from the sibling shader_manage by focusing on global/project-wide shader parameters rather than general shader management, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.

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 by listing operations and their purposes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like shader_manage or visual_shader_manage. It provides no exclusions or conditions for choosing this tool over siblings, leaving the agent to infer from the operation names.

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