draw_architecture

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

The destructiveHint=true annotation is consistent with the description's explicit 'Replace the scene', and the description goes beyond the annotation by explaining the layout algorithm (components arranged horizontally with automatic connectors) and that styling applies globally to every element. It stops short of saying whether the prior scene is recoverable via undo or whether a save is needed first.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each following sentence adds distinct information (input syntax, layout behavior, styling scope). Size is appropriate for a tool with this much surface; only the heavy code-quoting makes it marginally longer than necessary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the description covers the essential input grammar and layout rule. For a destructive full-scene replacement with ten parameters, though, it omits recovery/prerequisite context (undo availability, guidance on selecting draw_mermaid vs this tool) that an agent would want before wiping a scene.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It does well on the required 'prompt' parameter, documenting the shape-prefix syntax and accepted shape aliases, but it compresses the nine style parameters into one sentence about being optional and global—useful for scoping but not explaining any individual parameter's meaning or interaction.

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 gives a specific verb and effect ('Replace the scene with a diagram') plus the exact input grammar ('shape: label' with rectangle/box, circle/ellipse, diamond) and layout behavior. It is clear what the tool builds, though it never names a sibling such as draw_mermaid to disambiguate between the two diagram-generation paths.

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?

Usage is implied by the input format (a comma/newline-separated component list), which tells the agent this is the bulk-diagram path rather than incremental add_rectangle/add_circle calls. However, there is no explicit 'use this when X, use draw_mermaid instead when Y' guidance or precondition statement.

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