generate_plantuml_diagram

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

Despite having no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: automatic syntax validation, return of embeddable URLs or structured errors, and optional local file saving. It doesn't detail side effects like overwriting files or permission requirements, but it covers the main behavioral traits.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the main action and key differentiator.

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?

With a moderate number of parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return types (URLs or error details) and optional side effect (file saving). It's sufficient for an agent to understand inputs and outputs.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no significant parameter details beyond the schema, though it reiterates the auto-validation behavior for plantuml_code.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('PlantUML diagram') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like decode_plantuml/encode_plantuml by adding automatic syntax validation and error reporting.

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?

States the tool is for 'auto-fix workflows' and describes its typical use of generating diagrams with validation. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the description implies when to use it versus other PlantUML utilities.

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