Create a laid-out, connected diagram

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: automatic layered layout, wiring nodes with connectors, and referencing nodes by `key` strings. It also mentions the one-call nature and the overlap-avoidance benefit, adding context beyond the schema.

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 two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each sentence adds value: the first explains the build process and benefit, the second clarifies key referencing. No redundant text.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the high-level behavior (layout, connectors, keys) and usage context (multi-node diagrams). It doesn't mention edge cases like unknown keys (schema does) or return values, but the schema is rich and the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 89%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the `key` contract ('Refer to nodes by your own key strings; edges use those same keys') but adds no detailed parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents. The layout parameters are not explained in the description, but the schema handles that.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Build a complete flowchart or graph in one call.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by positioning as 'the preferred tool for any multi-node diagram' and contrasting with hand-placing nodes, unlike create_shapes or create_connectors.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'preferred tool for any multi-node diagram' and explains the benefit: 'avoids the overlapping shapes you get from placing nodes by hand.' It doesn't name alternative tools explicitly for single-node cases, but the guidance for multi-node diagrams is clear.

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