create_decision_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It substantively covers behavior: it generates diamond/rectangle node shapes, labeled edges, writes a .excalidraw file, and returns the absolute path. It omits secondary details like overwrite behavior and path handling, but the core side effect and output contract are clear.

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 compact and well organized: an overview sentence, a second sentence with key visual semantics, an Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence contributes a distinct fact, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 no annotations and low schema description coverage, the description provides the essential call contract: required inputs, optional parameters, node/edge shape behavior, and the exact return value. Missing details like overwrite behavior and theme options are minor operational gaps for this kind of generator.

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 Args list must compensate. It adds brief but useful semantics for all five parameters, clarifies edge label optionality, and lists the node/edge fields. It does not explain theme value choices or node type enum values in depth, but the schema's nested definitions cover node and edge field details.

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 names a specific resource ('decision tree diagram') and adds distinguishing visual details: diamond decision nodes, rectangular outcome nodes, and labeled edges. This clearly separates it from generic create_diagram and other diagram-type siblings without needing to open the schema.

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 use for decision-tree diagrams through its name and opening sentence, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over create_flowchart, create_mindmap, or create_diagram, nor does it give exclusion criteria. Usage context is present but not stated as routing guidance.

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