umlforge_suggest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: it returns a recommendation plus a ready-to-run call rather than executing anything, and enumerates the four parts of the response (tool name, parameters, rationale, alternative). It is silent on rate limits, failure modes, or what happens when no tool matches, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 'START HERE if you are unsure which tool to use,' then organized into steps, use cases, examples, and args — easy to scan. Mild redundancy: the Args paragraph restates 'plain-English description' already covered in the opening and in the input examples, and the step list partially repeats the 'USE THIS WHEN' bullets.

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 description needn't enumerate return values, and it instead explains the shape of the recommendation at the right level. Combined with the annotation-covered safety profile and the explicit routing guidance, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first try.

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% for the single free-text parameter, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: 'Plain-English description... Include any relevant details: URLs, entity names, service names, tech stack — the more context, the better the pre-filled parameters.' It also supplies four concrete example inputs that model the expected shape and specificity.

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 purpose — route a plain-English goal to the correct UMLForge tool and return a pre-filled call — and explicitly positions itself against the 13 sibling tools ('not sure which of the 14 tools to use'). An agent can distinguish this router from umlforge_erd_schema or umlforge_threat_model 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?

Contains an explicit 'USE THIS WHEN' block with three concrete trigger conditions, including the meta-condition ('you are not sure which tool to use') and the alternative behavior it replaces ('avoid trial and error with the wrong tool'). Nothing about when to invoke it is left to inference.

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