Create architecture graph from a prompt

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It indicates the output is validated and uses the AWS Well-Architected model. It does not mention idempotency or side effects but given generation context, it's sufficiently transparent. Could mention if it modifies state.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then exclusions and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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?

Provides clear guidance on what the tool produces (nodes, edges), what it doesn't do, and where to go next. With only 2 parameters and no output schema, this is complete enough for correct agent invocation.

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 50% (existingNodes has description, prompt does not). The description mentions 'from a description' for prompt but doesn't add format or constraints. ExistingNodes is explained in schema. Description adds marginal value beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states it generates a validated {nodes, edges} cloud architecture from a description using Pinpole's AWS Well-Architected model. Distinguishes from siblings by noting it does not draw and provides references to drawing and simulation 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?

Explicitly tells when not to use (does NOT draw) and directs to alternative tools: pass result to pinpole_draw_on_canvas or pinpole_simulate_cost, or use pinpole_build_architecture for combined step.

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