remove_shader_node

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 only states 'delete node' and does not explain effects on the material, node graph, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a serious gap for a destructive operation.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks essential context and does not earn its brevity by conveying necessary information efficiently.

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 tool that deletes a shader node, the description is completely inadequate. It omits the node type, the material context, the effect on connections, and any prerequisites. An agent cannot safely call this tool without external knowledge.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description provides no explanation of the 'material' and 'node' parameters. An agent cannot infer what values to supply or how they relate. The description adds no value over the parameter names.

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 '删除节点' (delete node) essentially restates the tool's name without adding specificity. It does not mention that this is for shader nodes within a material, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like remove_geometry_node. The resource and scope are ambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as unlink_nodes or remove_geometry_node. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions that would direct an agent to select this tool.

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