version_management

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing about side effects, permissions, or operation-specific outcomes. For a tool with destructive actions like delete_version, this is a substantial gap.

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 extremely brief, but brevity is not conciseness. It under-specifies the tool completely, lacking any structure or key information needed for an agent to understand its scope.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, six distinct operations, no output schema), the single phrase is grossly insufficient. The description fails to convey operation-specific requirements, relationships between actions and parameters, or expected behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a description, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no semantic value beyond the schema, which is adequate but not enhanced.

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 '图表版本管理' (diagram version management) names the resource but lacks a specific verb or action. It provides minimal differentiation from siblings like save_diagram or load_diagram, and the actual operations are hidden in the action enum.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when to select specific actions like create_version vs list_versions. The description is purely a label.

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