Validate draw.io diagram

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

Annotations cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat those. The description adds the specific validation checks performed, but it does not disclose the output format, return value, or outcome when invalid structures are detected, which would materially help an agent interpret the invocations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the full list of validation checks. Every word carries information and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 one-parameter, read-only validation tool, the stated purpose and checks are clear, and the annotations cover safety behaviors. However, there is no output schema and no description of the return value or error/reporting behavior, so the agent cannot fully predict the result of a validation run. The description alone is not complete enough.

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?

The schema provides only an unannotated string property named input_path, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description never explicitly defines input_path as a path to a draw.io XML file, leaving the agent to infer this from the tool name and description. At 0% coverage, the description should compensate but does not add any parameter-specific meaning.

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 clear, specific verb 'Check' and names a precise resource, 'draw.io XML structure', then explicitly lists the defect classes it detects: duplicate ids, invalid geometry, page bounds, dangling edges, and node overlaps. This makes its purpose distinct from siblings like create_diagram, update_diagram, and inspect_diagram.

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 implies this should be used to validate a draw.io diagram's correctness, but it does not explicitly state when to use the tool versus alternatives such as inspect_diagram. It mentions no exclusions or conditional context, so an agent must infer the appropriate usage from the tool's purpose and sibling names.

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