hedgedoc_create_diagram

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. It explains the return value ('Returns the note ID and URL'), clarifies the structure of diagram_code (without type header), and notes that HedgeDoc 1.x renders Mermaid natively. While it does not describe side effects like access permissions or error behavior, it provides substantial insight into how the tool operates, surpassing typical minimal descriptions.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with the main action, and uses a bulleted list for parameters. A note about HedgeDoc 1.x follows directly. While the parameter list duplicates schema information, it adds essential context given the schema's lack of descriptions. The overall length is appropriate, though the bullet list could be slightly condensed if descriptions existed.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, the parameter semantics, and the return value. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but the description still mentions them. It does not address potential limitations like invalid Mermaid syntax or authentication requirements, but for a create-note tool, the provided context is solid. The inclusion of diagram type examples and the note about native rendering adds valuable context.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so excellently by explaining each parameter: title, diagram_type with examples, diagram_code with the important caveat 'without the type header,' and description as optional explanatory text. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema field names and titles.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Create a HedgeDoc note with a Mermaid diagram.' It specifies the resource (HedgeDoc note) and the special purpose (diagram), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like hedgedoc_create_blank and hedgedoc_create. The mention of native Mermaid rendering in HedgeDoc 1.x reinforces the tool's unique focus.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool—whenever a Mermaid diagram note is needed. However, it does not explicitly exclude other note-creation tools or name alternatives. The examples of diagram types and the note about rendering imply its specific use case, but the absence of explicit 'when not to use' guidance prevents a perfect score.

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