create_network_box

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that nonexistent nodes are silently skipped, that a ValueError is raised when the parent is missing, and that the return dict contains path/name/nodes_in_box. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but the covered behaviors are meaningful for safe invocation.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear main sentence followed by a parameter list. It avoids redundant text and includes only necessary behavioral and return information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers return values and error behavior well, but omits the `ctx` parameter entirely, which is required by the schema. Given no output schema or annotations, the missing context for a required parameter leaves a notable gap. Overall, the description is mostly complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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 description adds meaning to parent_path, name, and node_paths, explaining optionality and the silent-skip behavior. However, the required parameter `ctx` is entirely missing from the description, creating a critical gap since the schema provides no description for it either. This partial coverage is not fully sufficient to guide 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 explicitly states it creates a network box under a parent node, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_node by specifying 'network box' and 'group box in network editor'. The scope is clear and unambiguous.

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 the tool is for grouping nodes in the network editor, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or preferred use cases relative to other tools. The usage context is inferable but not explicitly stated.

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