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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden—and it delivers. It discloses the read inputs (repo tree, README, compose, package manifests, infra/, SQL migrations), the generated artifact type (mode=generated Mermaid, C4 or ER), where source metadata lives, and that TeamShared is not a git host. This sets accurate expectations for a create-and-store operation.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then flowing through inputs, output, metadata, attachment, and lifecycle. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the rich schema (100% parameter coverage, sensible defaults, output schema present), the description is complete enough for correct selection and invocation. It explains source inputs, generated output, metadata storage, attachment, and the refresh path. Minor details like required source resolution are already handled by the schema, so no meaningful context is missing.

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?

The schema already covers all 8 parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The prose adds only high-level attachment guidance ('Pass work_id / project_id to attach') and the generated-mode concept, which mostly restates schema-level kind information rather than adding new parameter meaning.

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 first sentence names a specific action ('Sketch a teamshared.diagram/v1 from GitHub manifests and store it') and a concrete resource. It further distinguishes itself from diagram_sync by pointing to it as the refresh alternative, and explicitly says it is 'not architecture recovery', so an agent can tell it apart from the closest sibling.

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 gives clear when-to-use context: it is for generating a new diagram sketch from GitHub manifests, and it explicitly names diagram_sync for refreshing later. It also states what the tool is not for ('not architecture recovery') and how to attach results ('Pass work_id / project_id to attach'), which fully orients the agent.

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