delete_shader_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the deletion but omits side effects such as whether connected links are automatically removed, whether the operation is reversible, or any error conditions. Minimal behavioral disclosure; just says 'Remove a node' without context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It's appropriately concise for a simple operation, though the brevity contributes to missing detail in other dimensions. Structurally it's sound—verb first, resource second—but content is thin.

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 the simple two-parameter tool, the description is minimal but doesn't address failure scenarios, return values, or side effects. An output schema exists, so return format needn't be described, but the description should note typical errors (e.g., missing node) or confirmations. Not complete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 two parameters. It references 'material' and 'node' but doesn't explain their expected formats, types, or that material_name must reference an existing material and node_name a node within that tree. The description adds only a hint of the relationship, not sufficient for correct invocation.

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 states a clear verb ('Remove') and resource ('a node from the material's node tree'). It distinguishes the tool from geometry-node removal (e.g., remove_geometry_node) by implying material/shader context, though it doesn't explicitly say 'shader node.' The name provides the shader specificity, so purpose is clear but not fully explicit in the description.

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 like remove_geometry_node. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that the material and node must exist) or what happens if they don't. Only states the action, leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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