diagram_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the DAG constraint and the return shape (diagram_id, num_nodes, num_edges, validity), which hints that a validity check occurs, but it never says what happens on invalid input, whether cycle creation fails, or whether anything persists. Partial behavioral disclosure only.

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-loaded one-line purpose followed by well-organized Args/Returns blocks. It is long, but given the 0% schema coverage every line about node/edge fields earns its place. The Returns block is slightly redundant since an output schema exists, keeping it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, and the parameter documentation is thorough enough to call the tool correctly. The gaps are behavioral: validation failure modes, persistence, and sibling routing are absent, which matters for a mutation-style create tool with no annotations.

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 0% and the schema is only an untyped array of objects, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It fully enumerates node fields (id, label, type with enum-like values, optional metadata/embedding) and edge fields (source, target, label, optional weight with default 1.0, properties). This is exactly the compensation a 0%-coverage schema requires.

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 ('Create') and resource ('a new diagram') and further defines what a diagram is (a DAG, the primary unit of reasoning). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like diagram_load, diagram_save, and diagram_delete, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 says what the tool does but never states when to use it versus siblings such as diagram_load or diagram_extract, nor any prerequisites (e.g. whether diagrams must be saved separately). The agent must infer usage entirely.

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