create_network_box

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the box is drawn, titled, and fits around the given sibling nodes, implying a visual, non-destructive operation, but it does not mention what is returned, whether the box is a created node, or any side effects on the existing graph.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clean bulleted argument list. Every line adds value, with no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

The tool is simple and all parameters are explained, but there is no output schema and the description omits return behavior, default behavior when node_paths is null, and any constraints or prerequisites. This leaves some uncertainty for an agent trying to confirm successful execution.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining each real parameter: parent_path, node_paths, comment, and color with 'RGB in 0..1.' The inclusion of 'ctx: MCP context' is slightly confusing because ctx is not in the input schema, but the other parameters are meaningfully documented.

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 lead sentence is specific: 'Draw a titled network box around nodes, to document a graph you built.' It names the verb, the object, and the purpose, and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_sticky_note or set_node_color.

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 'to document a graph you built' provides a clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is evident from the description.

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