set_principled_inputs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It only states the action without mentioning whether it modifies existing nodes, requires an existing material, creates default nodes, or overwrites values. No behavioral details are provided.

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 a single, focused sentence. It leads with the main action and follows with relevant key examples, avoiding unnecessary elaboration. It is concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 description is adequate for a basic setter but lacks completeness regarding prerequisites and edge cases. It does not specify whether the material must already exist, what happens to unspecified inputs, or how to handle invalid keys. With no output schema, return values are not required, but the absence of error/usage context leaves 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?

The description adds meaningful context to the 'inputs' parameter by enumerating expected keys such as Base Color, Metallic, Roughness, IOR, Alpha, etc., and referencing Blender 5.2 socket names. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it does not clarify the 'material' parameter or provide the complete key list.

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's function: batch-setting Principled BSDF inputs. It identifies the specific resource (Principled BSDF material nodes) and the action (batch set), distinguishing it from generic node editing tools like set_node_input or material creation tools.

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 a batch use case but does not explicitly explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as set_node_input or set_color_ramp. It lacks clear guidance on prerequisites or conditions for use, though the 'batch' aspect hints at its purpose.

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