add_shader_graph_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It only states that a node is added, without explaining that the .tres file is modified, that invalid node types may error, how nodes are connected (or not), or whether auto-placement occurs. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating 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 that clearly communicates the core action and the breadth of options. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the tool operates in a complex domain (VisualShader graph editing) with no output schema and no annotations. The description does not cover prerequisites, failure modes, return behavior, or how nodes relate to connection/param-setting operations. It is too terse for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small extra: '40+ node types available (constants, math, textures, effects)' which gives context for node_type but does not explain the format of params or position beyond the schema. The value added is marginal.

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 action ('Add a node') and the resource ('VisualShader graph'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_shader_graph_node or set_shader_node_param. The mention of '40+ node types' provides concrete scope.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like an existing .tres file, nor does it reference list_shader_node_types (which appears in the schema but not the description). There are no exclusions or alternative tool names in the description.

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