create_entity_relationship_diagram

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool creates a diagram but does not disclose whether it returns diagram code, writes a file, or requires any permissions. There is no mention of side effects or output behavior, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 a single sentence of ten words, front-loading the core purpose and format options. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 description is adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps. It does not explicitly state that the output is diagram code in the chosen format, nor does it mention optional parameters like includeViews. Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, a bit more context would improve completeness, but the current level is minimally sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to compensate due to full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('entity relationship diagram'), and further specifies the output formats (Mermaid, PlantUML, DOT). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_table_relationships or generate_schema_documentation.

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 use when an ER diagram is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The usage context is only inferred from the tool's name and purpose.

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