diagram_edge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add non-obvious value: it discloses upsert/idempotent semantics ('calling again with the same endpoints updates the label instead of adding a second edge'), which is exactly the kind of trait an agent needs. It does not cover permissions, error behavior, or the return shape.

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 tight and front-loaded: the primary action comes first, followed by the label semantics and the idempotency note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 0% schema coverage across five parameters, the definition covers the core workflow and idempotency but omits 'uid', endpoint semantics, and any error/return context. It is adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent invoking it correctly.

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 must compensate. It explains 'label' well (condition on a decision branch, with examples) and implicitly covers from/to via 'two steps' and delete via 'remove it', but 'uid' is never mentioned and endpoints are not named explicitly, leaving part of the 5-parameter surface undocumented.

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 names specific verbs and resource: wire two diagram steps together, relabel the wire, or remove it. It clearly frames this as an edge-mutation tool. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'diagram_link', which an agent might plausibly confuse with 'diagram_edge'.

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 three operations listed (wire, relabel, remove), and the 'calling again with the same endpoints' note hints at repeated invocation. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance (e.g. vs diagram_link or diagram_node), and no prerequisites are stated.

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