Edit a diagram

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds key behavioral details: it creates a new version, returns updated XML, and costs credits. These are not inferable from readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false alone. The description also clarifies that the tool mutates the diagram, which is consistent with the annotations (no contradiction).

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 concise and information-dense: a single opening sentence states the action and example, followed by two short sentences conveying versioning, XML return, credits, and user confirmation. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main expectations: it returns updated XML, creates a new version, and costs credits. It does not discuss failure modes or prerequisites, but for a straightforward edit tool the description is largely complete. The lack of differentiation from update_diagram is a minor 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including clear descriptions. The example 'add a Redis cache' in the tool description gives a hint about edit_prompt format, but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Apply a natural-language change to an existing diagram' with a concrete example. This makes the purpose specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'update_diagram', which likely serves a similar editing purpose.

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 gives clear usage context: natural-language edits, costs credits, and confirms with the user before calling. It also warns that it mutates the diagram. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'confirm with user' instruction is an important guideline.

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