Editar diagrama Fluyo

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds important context: operations apply sequentially, add_node/add_edge interact via temporary keys, and editing existing elements requires numeric IDs from the document JSON. The relayout operation's description even warns it deletes ALL manual waypoints—genuinely useful behavioral detail that complements the annotations rather than contradicting them.

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 compact, densely informative paragraph with no filler. Every clause serves a purpose—listing operations, explaining ordering semantics, and clarifying the key/id mechanism. The relayout sub-description is brief but packs critical destructive behavior into one sentence. Zero waste.

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 complex 3-parameter tool with nested operation objects and 9 operation types, the description covers the core interaction model (document source, ordering, key references, id-based editing). The relayout op gets its own warning, which is the kind of edge-case disclosure needed. It could detail edge cases for other operations (e.g., what happens with invalid ids), but the description covers the essential for an agent to use it confidently. No output schema, so return-value expectations are not described, but that is acceptable given the complexity-heavy input side.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful value beyond the schema. It explains that 'document' must be the full Fluyo JSON from create_diagram or a saved .fluyo.json file, clarifies that add_edge's 'from' can reference a temp key from the same call, and explains that existing-element edits use numeric 'id'. The parameter descriptions inside the schema for document and from also add context, though some nested fields remain unexplained.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Aplica una lista de operaciones... sobre un documento Fluyo existente') and lists all 9 supported operation types explicitly. It clearly distinguishes from sibling create_diagram by requiring an existing document as input, and the signature of supported operations differentiates it from read/export siblings.

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 clearly states operations are applied in order, explains add_node can define a temporary 'key' that add_edge references within the same call, and specifies that existing nodes/edges use numeric 'id' from the document JSON. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when NOT to use it, but the target usage (editing an existing document) is clear enough given sibling context.

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