build_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one meaningful trait, atomicity, which implies all-or-nothing behavior, but it does not say what happens on partial failure, whether existing content in parent_path is replaced or merged, or how dry_run and layout affect behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so the core action is immediately clear. But the compactness comes at the cost of under-specification: the space saved by omitting parameter and failure semantics is larger than needed.

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?

This is a complex batch-mutation tool with four parameters, zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema. One sentence mentioning atomicity is not enough to let an agent construct a correct nodes payload or predict the result, so major gaps remain.

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% across four parameters, including a nodes array whose item shape is untyped (additionalProperties: true). The description adds no meaning to nodes, parent_path, layout, or dry_run, leaving the most important argument, the node payload shape, entirely undocumented.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: "Build a whole node network." That is clearly distinguishable from single-node siblings like create_node or change_node_type, but it is not distinguished from close alternatives such as build_sop_chain or connect_nodes_batch, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase "in one atomic call" strongly implies usage as a batched alternative to repeated create_node/connect_nodes calls. However, it never states when to prefer this over create_network_box or build_sop_chain, nor any prerequisites, so the guidance is only implied.

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