diagram_extract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that a new composite node and new diagram ID are produced, but does not state whether the source diagram is modified, whether the operation is reversible, permission requirements, or any side effects for a mutation-style tool.

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 with the core action, followed by compact Args and Returns sections. Efficiently sized with no filler, though the Args/Returns boilerplate is generic docstring formatting rather than tailored guidance.

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 the plain-text Returns restatement is redundant. For a structural mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the description omits the key question of whether the source diagram is altered, leaving the agent without a complete behavioral picture.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does give meaning for all three parameters ('source diagram ID', 'nodes to extract', 'label for the new composite node'). The semantics are correct but terse, adding no format details (e.g., node ID conventions, label constraints).

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 (extract) and the transformation (subgraph into a composite node), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate the tool from siblings like apply_rewrite_rule or diagram_create, which also mutate diagram structure.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives (e.g., when to extract vs. apply a rewrite rule). The Args/Returns docstring structure implies developer documentation rather than agent routing guidance.

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