Add a shader node to a material and set its inputs and properties.
添加节点。type 可省略前缀（TexNoise = ShaderNodeTexNoise）；inputs 按插槽名设值；properties 设节点属性（如 blend_type）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| type | Yes | ||
| inputs | No | ||
| location | No | ||
| material | Yes | ||
| properties | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 reveals some operational behavior (type prefix can be omitted, inputs are set by socket name, properties accept values like blend_type), but says nothing about success/failure behavior, return value, whether existing nodes are replaced, or error handling for invalid types or missing sockets.
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?
Three concise clauses front-load the core action and pack genuinely useful operational detail (prefix omission, socket-name inputs, property setting) into minimal space with no wasted words.
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?
A six-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage requires much more context than this. The description covers only half the parameters and omits return behavior, error conditions, and the meaning of name and location, leaving an agent with significant gaps when invoking the tool.
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 meaning for three parameters (type via the TexNoise prefix example, inputs via socket-name setting, properties via blend_type example), but leaves name, location, and material entirely unexplained, failing to fully compensate for the complete absence of schema descriptions.
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?
Description clearly states verb '添加' (add) and resource '节点' (node), making the core action unambiguous. It provides useful detail about type prefix handling, but does not differentiate from related siblings like add_image_texture, add_geometry_node, or build_node_tree, which all add nodes in different contexts.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_node_input, set_node_property, or link_nodes. The description gives operational hints (prefix omission, socket-based inputs) but never states the conditions under which this tool is preferred over its many shader-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.