generate_diagram

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does this well: it explains default provider fallback, cost scaling by quality tier, and that theme governs only the background. It stops short of stating file-creation side effects or auth requirements, but the output_path parameter and cost details provide meaningful transparency.

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 one-line summary is followed by a well-organized Args block. While long, each line adds essential info about defaults, constraints, or pricing; no filler or repetition. It is appropriately detailed for an 11-parameter tool.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameters, provides usage decision rules, cost implications, and fallback behavior, leaving little ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. Every parameter is explained in Args, including defaults, allowed values, and special guidance for provider/model (LEAVE AS DEFAULT) and quality (cost breakdown). This far exceeds mere schema names.

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 clear verb and object: 'Generate an architecture diagram from a text prompt.' It distinguishes itself from sibling 'edit_diagram' by focusing on creation, and the parameter list covers many diagram types, making the scope explicit.

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?

Provides strong usage guidance: tells callers to leave provider/model as default, explains when to override, and gives context on theme defaults. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like list_templates, but the generation-vs-edit distinction is clear enough for selection.

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