set_shader_param

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('set') but does not mention side effects, failure modes (e.g., missing ShaderMaterial), whether the value is required, or any permissions needed. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential action and target in eleven words, earning a perfect score for efficiency.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: it does not clarify whether 'value' is optional, what happens if the node lacks a ShaderMaterial, or what the tool returns. These ambiguities make it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 implies 'param' is a uniform name and 'value' is the value to set, and 'node_path' identifies the node. However, it does not explicitly explain each parameter's role or type, and notably omits that 'value' is not required by the schema, which could confuse the agent.

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 ('Set') and resource ('one shader uniform on a node's existing ShaderMaterial'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like assign_shader_material (assigning a whole material) or get_shader_params (reading parameters). It unambiguously states the tool's core function.

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 phrase 'existing ShaderMaterial' provides clear context that the node must already have such a material, and 'one shader uniform' implies use for setting a single param rather than replacing the material. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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