Crear diagrama Fluyo

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already tell the agent this is a safe, idempotent creation with no destructive side effects. The description adds meaningful context beyond this: auto-layout behavior for missing coordinates, and the note that the result is directly openable/editable in Fluyo. It doesn't contradict annotations. It doesn't cover every edge case but adds value beyond the structured data.

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?

Three sentence description — front-loads the core purpose and output format, then adds auto-layout behavior, and closes with concrete sibling-tool references for valid values. Zero wasted words, every sentence earns its place.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the output format (.fluyo.json), the auto-layout behavior, and points to sibling tools for valid enums. It could mention the build/stagger animation behavior or the single mode, but those are documented in the schema. It's adequate for a creation tool with this parameter richness.

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 62% (8 of 13 parameters described in-schema), so baseline is 3. The description adds context on node 'key' as a temporal identifier used only within the call, and explains auto-layout positions nodes when x/y omitted. However, the description doesn't enumerate or elaborate on the many styling parameters (dots, speed, stagger, single, build) beyond what the schema already provides, so it doesn't push above baseline.

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 explicitly states it creates a complete architecture diagram in .fluyo.json format from nodes and edges — specific verb+resource+output format. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming edit_diagram and export_diagram as follow-up tools rather than overlapping functions. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: it handles auto-layout when x/y are missing, and the resulting JSON can be opened directly in Fluyo or further edited/exported. It also points to list_icons and list_templates for valid values, giving helpful usage hints. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this vs creating from a template (create_from_template is a sibling), which would elevate it to a 5.

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