resolve_diagram_collisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It reveals that coordinates are shifted, but it does not state whether the input file is modified in place, what output_path controls, or what the operation returns. For a mutating tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 with no filler, and the core action and mechanism are front-loaded. It is concise, though it achieves this by omitting important operational details penalized in other dimensions.

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?

For a mutating tool with no annotations, the description is too thin to support confident invocation. It omits output_path semantics, in-place editing behavior, and any guidance about choosing this over related diagram tools. An agent can grasp the purpose but not the full call contract.

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 map input_path or output_path to their roles. It only implies a .drawio file is involved, leaving the agent to guess which path is required and what happens when output_path defaults to null.

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 states a specific verb ('resolve'), a specific resource ('node collisions in a .drawio diagram'), and a mechanism ('shifting overlapping coordinates'). It is clear and distinct from sibling tools in topic, though it does not explicitly name an alternative to differentiate against.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like patch_diagram, beautify_diagram, or analyze_diagram. The agent must infer applicability solely from the name and brief action phrase.

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