create_class_diagram

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool generates a class diagram, includes relationship arrows, and returns an absolute path to a .excalidraw file — useful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not discuss overwrite behavior or error cases, but for a diagram-creation tool the core behavior is adequately disclosed.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a concise behavior summary, a clean Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds information and there is no filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 creation tool with five parameters, one required, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, key parameters, and output format. It is missing minor context such as what happens when output_path is omitted or how the generated file relates to sibling tools like modify_diagram or export_diagram, but it is otherwise complete enough to call correctly.

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. The 'Args' section explains the meaning of all five parameters, including that classes contain name/attributes/methods, relationships connect classes, and theme takes 'light' or 'dark'. This adds real semantics beyond the raw schema, though it leaves deeper nested details to the schema definitions.

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 and resource: 'Create a UML class diagram.' It then elaborates on what the diagram contains — class boxes with attributes/methods and relationship arrows — which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_sequence_diagram or create_er_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 tool is for UML class diagrams, and the 'Args' section clarifies required inputs. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as create_er_diagram or create_architecture_diagram, and no exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.

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