Enhance existing diagrams by performing topological auto-layout, fixing overlapping links, and applying modern themes.
Beautify any existing diagram by running topological auto-layout, resolving overlapping links, and applying modern themes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| theme | No | modern_slate | |
| input_path | Yes | ||
| output_path | No | ||
| layout_direction | No | TB |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects such as whether the input file is modified in place, if output_path is required for safety, or if the operation is reversible. The description only lists the actions performed (auto-layout, link resolution, theming) without addressing impact on the source diagram.
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 a single, focused sentence that lists the core actions concisely. It has no fluff or redundant phrasing, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
While the description covers the primary purpose, it leaves out critical context such as output format, return value, error conditions, and parameter constraints. The output schema is present but not elaborated, and the description does not clarify how this tool integrates with the diagram lifecycle (e.g., whether it produces a new file or updates an existing one).
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%, and the description does not explain any of the three optional parameters (theme, output_path, layout_direction). It mentions applying themes and auto-layout but does not specify valid values for theme or layout_direction, nor clarify the role of output_path. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.
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 action ('beautify') and the object ('any existing diagram'), which is distinct from generation or analysis siblings. However, 'any existing diagram' is somewhat generic and could apply to multiple diagram types, but it is still precise enough for basic routing.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like patch_diagram, resolve_diagram_collisions, or generate_smart_diagram. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.