drawio_create_diagram

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add real behavior: layout is automatic (layered, TB/LR) unless x/y are supplied, and export_format triggers an additional render. It does not state whether files are overwritten, where output lands, or what output_file does, so mutation/file-system side effects remain undisclosed.

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?

Front-loads the domain bracket, then the core action, then shape vocabulary, then layout/export behavior. The long shape list is dense but earns its place as the only source of that enum information. Minor redundancy in listing both 'rectangle' and 'rounded' style families, but generally tight.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers inputs, shape vocabulary, layout, and export adequately. It omits how output_file interacts with the sibling set_output_folder and whether an export produces a separate file, leaving file-handling behavior under-specified for a creation tool with no annotations.

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%, so the description has to compensate, and it largely does: it spells out the node object keys {id,label,shape?,style?,x?,y?,width?,height?}, the edge keys {source,target,label?,style?}, the accepted shape vocabulary, direction TB|LR, and export_format png|svg|pdf. Only title and output_file are left unexplained, hence not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb ('Build a .drawio diagram') plus the ingredients (nodes/edges) and output formats, so the resource and action are unambiguous. The bracket header also frames the draw.io domain. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling drawio_flowchart or drawio_codec, so an agent must infer which diagram builder to pick.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to any sibling tool. The description implies usage only by describing the inputs it accepts (nodes/edges), leaving the choice between drawio_create_diagram and drawio_flowchart to inference.

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