create_shader_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add a shader node' and lists types, but does not explain whether the node is automatically connected to the material output, what happens if the material or type is invalid, or any side effects. The presence of an output schema helps but the description alone lacks critical behavioral 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 extremely concise: two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the common types listed in a compact enumeration. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description is adequate for a straightforward node creation tool, but it leaves gaps: it does not mention that the node is added unconnected, does not explain optional parameters, and does not state error behavior. Given the existence of an output schema, some return-value details may be covered, but the description alone is not fully complete.

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. It adds meaning to the 'type' parameter by listing common valid values, but it does not explain 'material', 'name', or 'location' parameters. Without this, the agent has to infer semantics from parameter names and tool context, leaving significant gaps.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a shader node to a material.' It also lists common node types, which distinguishes it from other node creation tools (e.g., create_geonode, create_comp_node) by specifying the shader node context.

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 adding shader nodes to materials in a shader node tree, and the list of common types helps identify appropriate values. However, it does not explicitly distinguish when to use this tool versus sibling tools like create_geonode or create_comp_node, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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