create_network_box

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation (creates a box) but says nothing about side effects, whether boxes can overlap or auto-resize, whether the operation is reversible, or whether it affects existing layout. Significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Single-sentence purpose up front, followed by a compact Args block. No waste. Minor: 'document a graph you built' is slightly editorial.

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 4-param mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the basics but leaves behavioral and usage gaps that an agent needs to call it confidently.

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. It documents all four params reasonably: parent_path (network), node_paths (siblings to enclose, box fits around them), comment (title), color (RGB 0..1). This is decent, but color format is only partially specified ('RGB in 0..1') and node_paths behavior when null is unstated. Baseline for low coverage would be lower, but the description does add real meaning — 3 is fair.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Draw a titled network box around nodes.' Clearly distinguishes from sibling create_sticky_note and create_node. 'document a graph you built' adds a use-case framing, though the phrase is a bit soft.

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 vs alternatives guidance, no prerequisites, no note about when a box (vs a sticky note, vs verify_network) is appropriate. Agent must infer intent from the sibling list.

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