create_sticky_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing about effects: no statement of what the returned value is, what happens if parent_path is invalid, or whether the note is immediately created. It only documents argument units, which is parameter-level, not behavioral, context.

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?

Front-loads the purpose sentence, then lists args efficiently. However, it includes a non-parameter entry ('ctx: MCP context.') that adds noise, and reads as a raw docstring dump rather than a curated description.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility, and it leaves out what the tool returns and any failure/edge behavior for a mutation tool. The parameter documentation is complete, so it is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it names all five parameters and adds units the schema lacks – 'position: [x, y] in network editor units', 'size: [width, height] in network editor units', and 'color: RGB in 0..1'. This meaningfully disambiguates format and ordering beyond the bare schema types.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Leave a sticky note in a network.' An agent understands it creates a note object inside a specified Houdini network. It does not differentiate from any sibling (there is no other note tool), but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. It is purely a signature listing with no routing context.

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