unity_configure_shader

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the supported shaders and the properties_json format, which is helpful. However, it does not describe whether the tool modifies the material in place, creates a new material, requires any prerequisites, or what side effects may occur (e.g., updating existing properties).

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 and well-structured: one sentence for purpose, followed by a bulleted list of parameters with clear labeling and examples. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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?

An output schema exists but is not visible; assuming it covers return values, the description lacks information on prerequisites (e.g., whether the material must exist, whether the Unity project is open) and whether the tool can create a new material or only modify existing ones. This leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It provides detailed explanations for all four parameters: project_path, material_name, shader_name (with options and default), and properties_json (with format and per-shader examples). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 it configures shader properties on a Unity material and lists supported shaders (Poiyomi, lilToon, UTS2, Standard). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like material_assign or material_create_pbr, which handle different material aspects.

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 usage for setting shader properties on a material and explains the parameter format, including examples. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, such as setting textures via material_set_texture or color via set_material_color.

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