build_material_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It explains the tool creates materials with node connections and lists presets, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing materials) or prerequisites (e.g., active object).

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 concise (approx. 80 words) and well-structured with labeled parameter sections. Every sentence is informative; no fluff. Slightly verbose in the presets list but acceptable.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown), the description need not explain return values. It adequately covers all parameters and provides practical context (e.g., preset types, texture keys). Missing details like default behavior for missing textures are minor.

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 significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has no parameter descriptions. It explains material_name, presets with concrete examples, textures as a JSON map with expected keys, and notes custom_nodes as advanced. This compensates for the schema's 0% coverage.

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 that the tool builds complex shader node trees programmatically, creating materials with proper node connections. It distinguishes itself from simple color assignment tools (e.g., set_material_color) by emphasizing its advanced capabilities.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like material_create_pbr or material_create_preset. It implies it's for complex setups but lacks formal when/when-not criteria or direct references to sibling tools.

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