Validate Uml

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the description only needed to add substance — and it does, disclosing that a real renderer compile happens and that `valid` reflects renderer acceptance rather than just local syntax. It stops short of noting that compilation is a network/latency-cost operation or how strict mode changes behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and mechanism, then the return shape. No filler, and every clause adds information.

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 output schema exists, so explaining return values is optional, and the compile-mechanism note is valuable context. But with 0% parameter coverage and no pointer to list_diagram_types for legal `diagram_type` values, an agent still cannot construct a correct call from the definition alone.

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% across four parameters, and the description explains none of them: `diagram_type` (what values are legal), `strict` (what it tightens), `output_format`, and `code` are all left to inference. The return fields it lists are outputs, not parameters, so they don't compensate.

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?

States a specific verb (validate) and resource (diagram), and explains the mechanism — local structure checks plus a real Kroki compile. It is distinguishable from generate_uml and render_diagram by the emphasis on checking rather than producing output, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied (run this to learn whether a diagram will actually render), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer render_diagram or generate_uml instead, and no prerequisites mentioned.

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