import_mermaid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that layout is automatic and that created object ids are returned, but it omits mutation side effects, permission requirements, and whether changes are undoable (that detail lives only in the schema's path parameter).

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The main action and supported diagram types are front-loaded, and the return behavior is stated immediately after.

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?

The high schema coverage and explicit mention of returned ids help, but for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description leaves notable gaps around side effects and selection versus sibling tools. It is adequate to call correctly but not fully complete.

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 83%, so the schema documents most parameters well. The description only echoes the mermaid content indirectly via supported diagram types and adds no further syntax or formatting guidance for the required mermaid parameter; 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?

States a specific verb ('Adds') and resource ('Mermaid diagram'), and lists supported diagram genres plus automatic layout. The purpose is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as add_code_block or add_shape.

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 by naming Mermaid diagram types (flowchart/graph, stateDiagram, sequenceDiagram), but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over add_code_block, add_shape, or add_connector, nor any exclusions.

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