batch_shader_uniforms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burdenと思われる。 It discloses that the tool writes files unless dry_run is used, that dry_run 'report[s] changes without writing files,' and that recursive controls subdirectory scanning. This is meaningful transparency for a bulk mutation operation, though it does not discuss reversibility or file-matching edge cases.

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 focused and front-loaded: purpose first, then a compact param mapping example, then an Args list that covers all four parameters. Every sentence contributes either the outcome, the data format, or a parameter semantic.

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 4-parameter bulk-mutation tool with no annotations)Skip? The description covers the key inputs, the file type, recursion, and the no-write dry-run path. It does not specify path resolution details or error-handling behavior, but since an output schema existsasi, return-value documentation is not required here. The core information needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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 fully compensate. It does: directory is defined as where to scan, uniform_overrides is explicitly mapped with a concrete Python-dict example, recursive states its default and behavior, and dry_run semantics are stated. This adds real meaning the bare schema lacks.

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 names a specific action ('Scan ShaderMaterial .tres files and bulk-override shader_parameter/* values') and resource, and gives concrete examples ('cell-shading threshold, outline thickness, ink color'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the animation, texture, and scene siblings by targeting shader uniforms across many assets.

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 states the intended use case: batch-updating a uniform parameter across hundreds of assets in one call, with recursive scanning and a dry-run mode. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the bulk-vs-single-asset context is clear from the wording.

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