game_visual_shader

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only mentions 'create and edit' without detailing side effects, persistence, error behavior, or whether it modifies project resources. The agent receives insufficient information about how this tool behaves at runtime.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information, making it efficient for agent scanning.

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's complexity (10 parameters, multiple actions) and the absence of an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the workflow, whether modifications apply to the current scene or project, or how nodes are identified. Critical context for safe invocation is missing.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage (all 10 parameters are described). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it mentions high-level actions but does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. Baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: creating and editing VisualShader graphs. It specifies the primary actions (add, connect, disconnect nodes), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'manage_shader' that may handle other shader types.

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 implies that this tool is for visual shader graph editing, but it does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., for text shaders or other graph editing). No 'when not to use' or alternative tool references are present.

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