Draw the stakeholder influence/interest matrix

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers meaningful disclosure: the boundary rule (medium counts as the high side, boundary cases marked '*'), verbatim rendering of recorded approaches with generic placeholders only for unset ones, and the independence of the confidence axis from quadrant placement. The confidence-mark behavior is partially already in the schema, but the quadrant-edge rule and placeholder behavior are genuinely additive.

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 bilingual structure doubles length, but every clause earns its place and information is front-loaded: purpose first, then quadrant rule, approach handling, and confidence axis. The two most decision-relevant facts (medium counts as high; inferred placements are visually marked) appear early. Slightly long due to ja/en duplication, but nothing is 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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately discloses the output form (Mermaid quadrantChart) and the rendering rules that affect how results will look. The notable gap is empty-input behavior: stakeholders defaults to [] and the schema hints at engagement-data fallback, but the description never states what happens when no stakeholders are supplied, leaving a plausible misinvocation path for agents without engagement context.

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 100%, so the schema alone documents all parameters and object fields, including the ● △ × marks on confidence and the verbatim display of approach. The description adds only the quadrant boundary rule (how influence/interest map to positions), which is useful but is rendering behavior more than parameter semantics. At full schema coverage the baseline of 3 applies, and the description contributes modest extra meaning.

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 names a specific verb (配置する/Plot), a specific resource (stakeholders), and an output format (Mermaid quadrantChart), stating the influence × interest 4-quadrant scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling stakeholder_matrix by explicitly referencing the same quadrant rule while making clear this tool renders a diagram rather than the matrix judgment itself.

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 clearly positions this as the visual-diagram counterpart to stakeholder_matrix ('quadrants are decided by exactly the same rule as stakeholder_matrix'), giving an agent enough context to prefer it when a chart is requested. However, it never explicitly states when NOT to use it or names alternative diagram tools (e.g., diagram_risk_matrix), leaving exclusion conditions implied rather than stated.

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