Import Drawio Outline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It says 'generate skeleton' but does not mention whether this is destructive, whether it overwrites existing arcs/chapters/scenes, or what happens to already-created content. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single focused sentence that gets straight to the point. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It states the core function clearly but omits side effects, return behavior, or any specifics about what 'skeleton' entails. It is usable but leaves important questions unanswered.

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 descriptions cover 67% of parameters (xml and file_path, each noting mutual exclusivity). The tool description adds context by mentioning the XML source, but does not explain project_id or the exact role of each parameter beyond what the schema already states. Overall, marginal added value.

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 function: parsing .drawio XML and generating arc/chapter/scene skeletons based on node labels. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which mention import or draw.io parsing.

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?

Usage context is implied: if you have a .drawio outline, this tool imports it. But there are no explicit instructions on when to use this instead of another tool, nor exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., must have an existing project).

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