rename_blueprint_comment_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutating nature (rename), the optional recolor parameter, the flexible node_id format (GUID or node object name), and the return type (Dict with node_id, node_name, comment_text, bounds). It also links to a KB document for further context. It does not mention potential failure modes or whether the change is applied immediately, but for a straightforward rename operation, the coverage is adequate.

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-organized: purpose first, then usage context, then parameter details, returns, a KB link, and a concrete example. Every element earns its place, and nothing is redundant.

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 5 parameters and an output schema, the description gives all needed context: the exact purpose, parameter semantics, return value description, an example call, and a point to further documentation. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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, and it does. Every parameter is explained in the Args section: blueprint_name is 'Asset name of the Blueprint,' node_id can be 'GUID or node name,' comment_text is 'New visible comment header text,' graph_name has a default and specifies the graph, and color is described as 'Optional [R, G, B, A] color in 0..1 range.' This adds essential semantics beyond the raw schema types.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb-resource pair: 'Rename and optionally recolor an existing Blueprint comment box.' This immediately distinguishes it from siblings like add_comment_box and create_comment_box, which create new boxes, and move_blueprint_node, which changes position.

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?

It states a clear context: 'Use this for graph polish after programmatic node creation.' This conveys the intended scenario, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The description could be stronger with an explicit exclusion, but the context is sufficient for correct selection.

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