create_comment_box

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It confirms creation but does not disclose side effects on the Blueprint graph, whether changes are easily reversible, or what happens if the comment box overlaps existing nodes. The alias note adds some context, but the behavioral profile is thin 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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, an alias clarification, a sequencing guideline, a KB reference, and an example. No sentence is wasted, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with seven parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough. It omits guidance for optional parameters and gives no behavioral or outcome detail beyond creation. The KB link and example help, but they do not fill the gap for safe, correct autonomous invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for the seven parameters. It only mentions blueprint_name and comment_text in the example, leaving color, width, height, graph_name, and node_position without added semantic context. The example demonstrates required arguments but does not explain their meaning or format beyond what the schema already shows.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create a color-coded Blueprint comment box.' It also identifies itself as a 'standards-friendly alias for add_blueprint_comment_node,' which helps position it among siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling add_comment_box, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 gives clear context: 'Use it before placing nodes for a functional block,' plus a KB pointer and a concrete example. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or how to choose between it and sibling comment-box tools, but the alias statement and sequencing guidance are enough to convey intended use.

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