add_comment_box

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining side effects. It states that a comment box is added to a graph, but it does not disclose whether the blueprint must already exist, whether the graph is modified destructively, whether compilation is needed, or what happens on repeated calls. For a mutating tool, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact parameter list, a KB pointer, and a concrete example. Every section earns its place, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a five-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter formats, and includes an example, which is good. However, it lacks use-case routing relative to the many sibling node-creation tools, and it does not mention behavioral expectations such as whether the blueprint graph must be loaded or saved afterward. With an output schema present, return-value details are not necessary, but the missing context around mutation makes this only minimally viable.

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 0%, but the description compensates by listing all five parameters and clarifying formats: position as [X, Y], size as [Width, Height], and color as [R, G, B, A]. Some entries like 'blueprint_name: Blueprint name' add little beyond the parameter name itself, but the overall parameter documentation is genuinely useful.

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 that the tool adds a comment box to a Blueprint graph for documentation, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings like add_blueprint_comment_node or create_comment_box, so an agent could struggle to pick among them based on this text alone.

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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only hint is 'for documentation,' which implies a use case but does not explicitly frame when this tool is preferred over the sibling comment-node creation tools.

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