Create GLSL shader

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

The description fully discloses side effects and nontrivial behaviors: it creates companion Text DATs (`<name>_frag`, `<name>_vert`), wires them to the GLSL TOP's parameters, performs best-effort uniform binding on the Vectors page, sets output resolution, and returns warnings for sampler2D or manual-wiring cases. This is far beyond the basic annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and provides essential operational 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 compact yet complete: three sentences cover the core action, the operational details (DAT creation, wiring, uniform binding, resolution), and the return value plus warnings. Every sentence contributes new information; there is no redundancy or fluff. The structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose and flows logically to side effects and outcomes.

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 covers the creation process, side effects, and return values, which is especially important given there is no output schema. It mentions potential warnings for sampler2D and manual wiring. However, it omits a few possible edge cases like parent_path validation or behavior if the shader fails to compile, but given the richness of the schema and the level of detail, the description is mostly complete. A 4 reflects the minor gaps.

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 already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful workflow semantics not in the schema, such as the companion DAT naming convention (`<name>_frag`/`<name>_vert`), the behavior of best-effort uniform binding, and the resolution setting. It also clarifies return values including warnings. This enriches the parameter context without replacing the schema, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Create a GLSL TOP under parent_path' – a specific verb + resource + target location – and explains it renders a custom fragment shader with optional vertex shader. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_glsl_material (which creates a material, not a TOP). The description goes beyond a generic statement by detailing the companion DATs, wiring, and return values.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for creating a GLSL TOP with shader source, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The mention of 'under parent_path' and the specific TOP/component context provides strong situational guidance, yet no exclusionary or comparative language is present. This earns a 4 for clear context without exclusions.

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