assign_shader_material

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It reveals that a new ShaderMaterial is created and assigned, but does not mention whether existing materials are overwritten, whether the scene is saved/modified, or any potential errors (e.g., invalid paths). This is a mutation tool with significant undeclared behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that is free of redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clear: action (wrap) + object (shader) + result (new ShaderMaterial) + target (node in edited scene).

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?

For a tool that creates a material resource and mutates a scene, the description is under-specified. There is no mention of return value, error cases, or whether the material is saved/persisted. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to be considered 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It links node_path to 'a node' and shader_path to 'a shader', but does not clarify expected path formats (e.g., scene tree paths vs resource paths), whether shader_path must be a Shader resource, or how the wrapping affects the material's parameters. Minimal value added beyond parameter names.

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 specific verb phrase 'wrap a shader in a new ShaderMaterial and assign it to a node' that clearly identifies the tool's unique function. It distinguishes this from siblings like set_material_3d (which sets an existing material) and set_shader_param (which modifies shader parameters).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_material_3d or create_shader. The description states what it does but not the context in which it is the preferred choice, nor 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.