fluig_process_diagram_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It labels the operation as 'WRITE' (mutation) but does not mention side effects, reversibility, or that the confirm parameter must be true. The description is minimal beyond purpose.

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 very concise: one sentence plus a brief note. It is front-loaded with 'WRITE' and immediately states the purpose. No wasted words.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the key usage context but omits important behavioral details like the need for confirm=true or what happens on success/failure. It is partially 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional information about parameters; it does not explain the confirm parameter's role or the format of svg, processId, or processVersion.

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 explicitly states 'Replace the SVG diagram of a process version' with a clear verb and resource, and provides context about when it is required (after XML topology change), distinguishing it from sibling process tools.

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 gives a clear precondition: 'Required after changing the topology in the XML, otherwise the published drawing no longer matches the flow.' It implies when to use but does not explicitly state when not to or mention alternatives.

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