Push an authored diagram

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world write. The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: private visibility, update-on-same-id semantics, returned canvas and embed links, quota consumption, and the required pre-validation step.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then covers update semantics, return values, and limits in a compact sequence. Every clause carries operational information and there is no filler.

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 write/update tool with no output schema and full parameter coverage, the description supplies the key missing context: validation prerequisite, visibility, quota impact, and return links. It does not describe failure or error behavior, but is otherwise complete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so source, title, and diagramId formats are already documented in the input schema. The description adds meaningful behavior for diagramId by explaining that re-pushing it updates the existing diagram, but adds little parameter-specific detail for title or source beyond the schema.

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 and resource: validate and store an ArcSync diagram as a private diagram in the caller's workspace. It also distinguishes create-vs-update behavior via diagramId and names validate_diagram as the prerequisite, so an agent can tell it apart from read-only siblings.

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?

Explicitly says to call validate_diagram first and explains that pushing the same diagramId updates the existing diagram. It also warns that calls count against workspace diagram and hourly limits, though it does not give a direct when-not-to-use or named alternative beyond the validation prerequisite.

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