create_astah_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses key behaviors: automatic layout when x/y are omitted, temporary PNG export for visual inspection, and preservation of only the final .asta file. It does not mention overwrite behavior or return format, but the disclosed behaviors are valuable and non-contradictory.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the tool's role and purpose, and each sentence conveys essential information: what the tool does, default diagram count, and layout/output behavior. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the complex schema with nested objects and the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient high-level guidance: how to use the tool (interpret, convert, create), default behavior, and what happens with layout and files. It could have explicitly directed agents to get_astah_capabilities for valid kinds, but the schema already does this, so the completeness is adequate.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all parameters including nested properties. The description adds some context about x/y omission and the default single diagram, but these are already present in the schema (e.g., 'Omitir para layout automático' and 'Use um único item, salvo solicitação explícita por mais diagramas'). Therefore, the description adds marginal value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'crie diagramas nativos no Astah' (create native diagrams in Astah), using a specific verb and resource. It also frames itself as 'Ferramenta principal e genérica' (main and generic tool), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_astah_visual_layout and get_astah_capabilities.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Depois de interpretar o pedido ou enunciado escrito pelo usuário, converta-o para esta especificação e crie diagramas' (after interpreting the user's request, convert it to this specification and create diagrams). It also gives explicit guidance on diagram count: 'Crie somente um diagrama por padrão; use vários apenas quando o usuário ou o enunciado os pedir explicitamente.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, relying on the 'main tool' framing.

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