design_diagram

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the stencil resolution step, the 'needs_download' status and rendering fallback behavior, and that Visio remains open and visible. It does not mention file overwriting or return value format, but the key behaviors are covered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the phase and purpose, and includes conditional behavior. It is efficient and well-organized, though it could benefit from clearer separation of output and side effects.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain return values. It mentions the 'needs_download' status but not the full return format on success or failure. It also leaves ambiguity about whether a new document is created or an existing one is used, though it implies rendering in the current Visio session. For a pipeline tool, this is moderately complete but has gaps.

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 schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, so the description adds minimal value beyond that. It does provide context that 'spec' comes from plan_diagram, but this is a usage hint rather than parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 purpose: it is Phase 3 of diagram generation, renders the positioned spec in Visio, and saves output files. It references the input spec from plan_diagram and distinguishes itself from siblings like resolve_stencil and validate_spec by focusing on the rendering step.

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?

It implies usage as the rendering step after plan_diagram, and explains the conditional behavior for missing stencils. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the phase context.

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