create_sticky_note

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers none. It says nothing about whether the note persists with the scene, whether it requires a network-editor pane or specific permissions, what happens on path mismatch, or what the call returns.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, which is good. But its brevity comes from omission rather than economy, so there is nothing substantive for a caller to act on beyond the tool name.

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 creation tool in a node-graph editor, with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the definition is far too thin. An agent would have to guess at coordinate formats, color encoding, and whether parent_path must already exist.

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 five parameters, and the description adds no meaning for any of them. parent_path, text, and especially size/color/position (typed as untyped number arrays) are entirely undefined, so an agent cannot know the expected coordinate or color space.

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?

"Leave a sticky note in a network" gives a verb and resource, and it is distinguishable from delete_sticky_notes by the create framing. However, "leave" is imprecise (create? attach? persist?) and it never says which network or what the note is anchored to, leaving the scope ambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as delete_sticky_notes or create_network_box. The annotate-a-network use case is only weakly implied by the word "note".

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