Update a diagram

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting private visibility requires a paid plan and the tool is free (no AI). Annotations only indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false, so the description enriches understanding of prerequisites and side effects.

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 three short sentences, each providing distinct value: capabilities, usage instruction, and cost/restriction. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no redundant text.

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 key aspects: update types, partial update semantics, paid restriction for private, and no-AI caveat. It does not mention return values, but with no output schema, this is acceptable. Sufficiently complete for a simple update tool.

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 description maps semantic actions (rename, change visibility, replace XML) to specific parameters and clarifies partial updates. Although schema descriptions cover all parameters, the description reinforces optionality and usage intent.

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 updates a diagram's metadata or XML, enumerating rename, visibility change, and XML replacement. It uses a specific verb 'update' with resource 'diagram', but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like edit_diagram.

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 context on supported actions and instructs to 'Pass only the fields you want to change,' implying partial updates. It does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives, but does not mislead.

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