SD Elements MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action ('Create'). It doesn't mention permission requirements, whether this is a write operation (implied but not explicit), what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or how the diagram integrates with the system. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise at just three words, which is appropriate for a simple concept. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure is front-loaded but lacks necessary elaboration.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what the diagram_data object should contain, how diagrams relate to projects, or what distinguishes this from other creation tools. The minimal description fails to provide adequate context for proper tool selection and invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description doesn't compensate with any contextual information about parameter relationships or usage.

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 'Create a new diagram' is a tautology that restates the tool name and title without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_project' or 'create_application' by explaining what type of diagram is being created or what makes it different from other creation tools in the system.

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 provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or relationships to sibling tools like 'create_project' (which might need to exist first) or 'update_diagram' (for modifications).

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