vizcom_create_prompt_node

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

The annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with destructiveHint=false. The description earns credit for adding two things annotations cannot convey: the node is 'visible editable' (a persistent board artifact) and the call 'does not generate or charge credits', which prevents an agent from avoiding the tool over cost fear. It stops short of saying what is returned (node id), whether repeat calls create duplicates, or any prerequisites on workbench state.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraint, followed by the referencing convention and the cost caveat. No filler and nothing buried.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the essential identity, the input constraint, and cost behavior, which is enough to call it correctly. Remaining gaps are the meaning of x/y placement and the return value an agent would need to chain into update_prompt_node.

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 5 required parameters, so the description must compensate and it only partly does: it explains sourceDrawingIds as 1–4 existing board images and defines the @1/@2 prompt referencing convention tied to source order. workbenchId, x, and y receive no explanation at all, leaving placement and workbench scoping ambiguous.

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 description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a visible editable prompt node') and constrains it to being connected to 1–4 existing board images, which separates it from the generation tools in the sibling list. It does not name the closest relatives (vizcom_update_prompt_node, vizcom_generate_board) explicitly, so an agent still has to infer the boundary rather than being handed it.

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?

It gives practical context for use: the node must attach to existing board images, and images should be referenced in the prompt as @1, @2 in source order. What is missing is an explicit when-not clause naming the alternative (e.g., use update_prompt_node to modify an existing node, or generate_board to actually render).

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