auto_layout_diagram

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether the diagram is modified in place, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens to existing symbol positions). This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and directly conveys the core purpose.

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 the existence of sibling tools like 'apply_custom_layout' and 'compare_layout_styles', the description lacks context on how automatic layout differs or when it should be used. With no output schema details visible and minimal parameter explanation, an agent may not fully understand the tool's scope and impact.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the 'diagram_id' parameter beyond its name, leaving the agent to infer its format or how to obtain it. The description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides (a string ID).

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 action (apply) and resource (automatic layout to a diagram). It is specific enough to distinguish from unrelated tools, but it does not differentiate from the sibling 'apply_custom_layout' or mention which automatic layout style is used, leaving ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'apply_custom_layout' or 'list_layout_styles'. The description does not specify conditions, prerequisites, or situations where automatic layout is preferred over custom layout.

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