import_shader_by_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses idempotency ('Idempotent if the shader is already imported') and the return shape ('imported:true and populated propertyDefinitions'). It omits permission requirements and failure behavior, but the operation's mutability and safety profile are reasonably clear.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded, then usage, then idempotency/return behavior. Every sentence contributes; no filler.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description itself explains the meaningful return fields, and it covers sourcing of parameters plus idempotency. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only permission/error details are absent.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented as coming from list_shaders. The description only adds the 'or' alternation between id and name, which the schema conveys independently; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Import a shader into the current file') and adds the purpose clause 'so it can be applied,' which distinguishes it from apply_shader and from the list_shaders source it names. It also clarifies that either id or name is accepted despite the '_by_id' name.

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?

Tells the agent exactly where the inputs come from ('from list_shaders') and that either shaderId or name may be used, which is the key precondition. It stops short of stating when to import vs. apply or any when-not conditions.

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