vpp_export_plantuml

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does disclose a real behavioral rule (relationships are only included between selected classes), which is valuable. However, it never says that the required 'path' means writing/overwriting a file on disk, nor anything about permissions or side effects — critical for a tool that appears to produce output at a path.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the export action and PlantUML target come first, followed by the use case and the class-filtering note. No filler sentences, though the parameter notes read as a slightly tacked-on tail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. Still, for a tool whose only required parameter is a destination path, the omission of what happens at that path (file creation, overwrite, encoding) leaves a meaningful gap.

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 'classes' well (list of class names, defaults to all) but leaves the required 'path' and the 'with_members' flag (default true) entirely unexplained, so only one of three parameters gains meaning.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (export a class-diagram fragment to PlantUML) and adds a concrete scenario (before/after pattern study). No sibling tool performs PlantUML export, so the purpose is distinguishable, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like vpp_list_classes or vpp_get_class.

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 before/after pattern-study example implies when to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives for simply inspecting classes (vpp_list_classes/vpp_get_class). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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