delete_shader_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action but does not reveal side effects such as breaking connections, permanent deletion, or whether the node is simply removed from the tree or also deleted from the material system. A mutation tool like this should note irreversible effects.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description is too sparse for a destructive tool with no annotations. It lacks usage context, parameter identification details, and behavioral side effects. For a tool that removes a node, users need to know if connections are automatically handled or if other nodes are affected.

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 schema has two string parameters with no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. The sentence uses 'material' and 'node' in context, implying the parameter roles, but it does not explain how to identify them (e.g., by name, path, index) or any constraints. This adds minimal semantic value beyond what the parameter names suggest.

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 action: 'Remove a node from a material's node tree.' The verb 'Remove' is specific, and the resource 'node from a material's node tree' distinguishes this tool from sibling delete tools like delete_material, delete_geonode, and delete_comp_node. It precisely describes what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 context—removing a shader node from a material—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the material must exist, the node must be present). There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, so it relies on the tool name and obvious context.

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