godot_set_shader_param

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

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint false, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the mutation ('set') but does not mention persistence, in-place editing of the material resource, or behavior when the parameter name is invalid. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and target. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward setter tool.

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 one-line description plus the richly described input schema covers what the tool does and how to supply parameters. It still omits behavioral context such as whether the change persists, what happens on invalid uniforms, and any active-scene requirement, so it 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?

The tool description itself adds little parameter-level meaning, only 'uniform values.' However, the nested input schema provides valuable semantics: valid value types, node_path vs. material_path alternatives, and concrete examples for parameter_name. Because the description does not add meaning beyond the schema, a middle score 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 uses a clear, specific verb ('Set') and a concrete target ('shader parameter uniform values on a ShaderMaterial'), so an agent understands the operation and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like godot_create_shader or godot_validate_shader, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as an existing ShaderMaterial or an active scene. The only cue is the verb 'Set,' which implies modification but does not provide routing or exclusion information.

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