put_space_diagram

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: idempotent no-op on identical source, created-private default, the exact return envelope, an auth requirement (DGMO_API_KEY in the server environment), and a mapped error-code table with a retry instruction for 409. That is exactly the extra behavioral detail annotations cannot carry.

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, then semantics, return shape, auth, and errors in descending priority. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the error-code enumeration is the one slightly chunky element.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description spells out the return object fields (action, id, title, folder, version) and the failure modes. Combined with 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by explaining that (folder, title) is the lookup key and that the key/space relationship is loose ('the space the API key belongs to' is echoed in the schema). It stops short of describing the dgmo payload's format beyond 'markup'.

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 ('Write a DGMO diagram into a Diagrammo Cloud space') plus the exact addressing scheme (folder + title) and the upsert semantics. An agent can distinguish this from get_space_diagram or render_diagram 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 a clear precondition and names the alternative: 'Call validate_diagram first; this does not validate.' It also explains the create-vs-update selection rule, which functions as usage guidance. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it (e.g., versus preview or list tools), so it sits just below the top.

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