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 ('Update'). It doesn't mention permission requirements, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, what happens to unspecified fields, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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?

While technically concise with just three words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to front-load useful information and doesn't earn its place with meaningful content beyond the obvious.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and complex nested parameters (diagram_data), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what diagram updates entail, what diagram_data structure should contain, or what the tool returns. The 100% schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and usage context.

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 (diagram_id, name, diagram_data). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format details for diagram_data or constraints on name changes. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update a diagram' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name/title without adding specificity. It doesn't mention what aspects of a diagram can be updated or distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_project' or 'update_advanced_report' beyond the resource name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, distinguish from 'create_diagram' or 'delete_diagram', or indicate appropriate contexts for diagram updates versus other update operations in the sibling tool list.

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