Manage annotation

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

The description adds behavioral transparency beyond the annotations by calling the edit action 'structured, verified' and noting it works with raw Python disabled. This gives useful context about safety and constraints, though it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing comments or coordinate validation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and a semicolon-separated enumeration of all actions. It is dense without being verbose, and the second sentence adds meaningful constraint context without waste.

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?

Given the multi-action complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description omits return behavior for 'list' and 'enclosed' and does not explicitly map actions to required parameter sets. The schema partially compensates with per-parameter action tags, but the lack of output information is a notable gap for correct 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?

The input schema already provides 100% descriptive coverage for all 12 parameters, including which action each applies to and value constraints. The description's mention of 'RGBA background' and 'exact node-space bounds' merely echoes the schema, adding no new semantic detail.

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 purpose ('Self-document a network') and enumerates five specific actions: create, edit, set comment, list, and inspect enclosure. This makes the tool's scope concrete and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_td_node or document_network, which focus on other aspects.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool—whenever annotations, comments, or geometric enclosure inspection are needed—but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this instead of X'. The note about edit working with raw Python disabled provides a usage condition but no direct comparison to alternatives.

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