umlforge_api_sequence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict them — a pure generation call is consistent with those hints. It adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing the report_mode entitlement constraint (Pro/Team/Enterprise only) and by spelling out the concrete deliverables (happy path plus two failure paths, dependency table, Design Score grading). It stops short of stating rate limits or any auth requirement beyond the tier note.

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-loads a one-line purpose, then layers USE THIS WHEN / NOT FOR / Produces / Args in scannable blocks with no filler sentences. The Produces list slightly overlaps the output schema, but it usefully sets expectations for a complex generative tool and costs little.

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?

For a multi-param generative tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this description supplies purpose, selection criteria, exclusions with alternatives, deliverable expectations, and per-parameter semantics. Nothing an agent needs in order to choose and invoke it correctly is missing.

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 carries the full burden — and it does: services is defined as all participants with a worked example string, user_journey as the action in plain English with an example, and report_mode as a boolean that additionally emits a Design Score report, including its availability restriction. All three parameters are unambiguous without the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Diagram how services call each other") with an explicit scope limit ("for a specific user action or API flow"). The NOT FOR section names the four sibling tools it must not be confused with (reverse_engineer, event_driven, frontend_components, erd_schema), so an agent can differentiate it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives four concrete when-to-use scenarios (cross-service tracing, contract design, failure paths, QA/post-mortems) and four explicit exclusions that each route to a named alternative. There is no ambiguity about which tool to pick for event-driven or frontend work.

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