diagram_jump

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-obvious behavior: the jump is stored once and read from both ends, so the return trip already exists and get_diagram reports it on both diagrams. It stops short of describing the delete path or any permission requirements, keeping it from a 5.

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-loaded with the verb and resource, then differentiation, use cases, and storage semantics in a logical order. Slightly longer than strictly necessary, but each sentence carries distinct information with no 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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, sibling differentiation, use cases and the symmetric storage model. It omits deletion semantics and permission needs, which the delete parameter and destructiveHint leave partially addressed but not fully explained.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented, including uid, node_key, peer_uid, peer_node and delete. The description only implies that the arrival step is optional ('optionally at one of its steps'), adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') with the scope of the target (optionally a specific step). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling diagram_link by contrasting what each attaches, so an agent can route between them without opening schemas.

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) and the exact semantic difference, then gives concrete when-to-use scenarios: a routine handing off to a sub-process, an error path owned by another flow, or a variant of the same job. Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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