game_visual_shader

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 lists actions and does not explain whether edits are immediately applied, whether apply is required to persist changes, whether graph operations are destructive, or how shaderId and shaderType affect 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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the resource and verb, and uses a scoped list of core actions. It wastes no words, though the enumeration of actions is only partial and omits get_nodes/apply.

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?

This is a complex multi-action tool with 10 parameters, a nested position object, no output schema, and no annotations. The one-sentence description is insufficient to fully understand when to invoke it, what effects graph edits have, or how the various action-specific parameters fit together, even though the schema compensates for parameter documentation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents every parameter. The description adds little beyond naming connect/disconnect operations, which the action parameter already expresses. It does not clarify relationships between parameters, such as nodeClass being required for add_node.

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 names a specific resource (VisualShader graphs) and a clear verb ('Create and edit') followed by concrete node operations. It distinguishes itself from related shader tools like game_set_shader_param, though it does not explicitly compare against manage_shader or mention all supported actions like get_nodes and apply.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as manage_shader or game_set_shader_param. The usage context is only implied by the phrase 'VisualShader graphs'; no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool references are provided.

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