diagram_jump

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: the jump is 'stored once and read from both ends,' the reverse edge already exists, get_diagram reports it on both diagrams, and a jump can be deleted from the receiving end. It stops short of describing permissions, side-effect profile for the delete flag, or reversibility guarantees.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the sibling-contrast and behavioral notes are ordered usefully. Slightly verbose with inline code formatting and parenthetical asides, but no sentence is purely filler.

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 six-parameter mutation-style operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and some behavior, but leaves label and peer_uid semantics and the delete flag's exact effect under-specified, so an agent still has gaps before invoking 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 and only partly does: it clarifies that leaving peer_node empty targets the whole diagram and that uid/node_key denote 'this diagram's side,' plus implicit delete semantics. It never explains label or peer_uid, leaving several of the six parameters 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Continue one step of a flow into ANOTHER flow') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling diagram_link by contrasting what each one represents. An agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (diagram_link) with an explicit contrast of meaning, and gives concrete when-to-use cases: a sub-process hand-off, an error path owned by another flow, or a variant of the same job. Nothing is left to inference about routing between the two link tools.

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