add_template_architecture

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that by default the tool resets the current session before adding template elements, which is key behavioral info. However, it doesn't specify behavior when reset is false (e.g., whether it appends or merges), leaving some 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: first sentence states action, second explains template content and default behavior.

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 the low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description sufficiently covers purpose, default behavior, and template nature. It could mention what happens if reset is false, but the current info is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description only mentions the default reset behavior, which is already in the schema. No additional parameter meaning is added beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'built-in architecture diagram template', specifying it visualizes the MCP server architecture. It distinguishes from siblings like add_elements (which adds generic elements) and create_diagram (which creates from scratch).

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 implies usage when wanting the specific MCP architecture template and notes the default reset behavior, but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool guidance. The purpose is clear but contextual usage decisions are left to the agent.

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