create_sequence_diagram

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool generates a hand-drawn style .excalidraw file and returns its absolute path, including the default output path. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, theme handling, or other side effects, which leaves some behavioral uncertainty.

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 with a one-line purpose, style notes, and an Args/Returns block that is easy to scan. There is minor redundancy between "Create" and "Generates," but no wasted or irrelevant sentences.

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?

Core inputs and the output artifact are covered, including the file path and default location, and the output schema removes the need to explain return values. Yet the description lacks usage context versus sibling tools and fails to mention the theme parameter, making it adequate but not fully complete for a 5-parameter 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 description coverage is 0%, but the Args block compensates by explaining participant ordering, message fields (from, to, label, style), optional title, and the output_path default. It omits the theme parameter entirely, though the schema does expose its type and default, so the practical gap is small.

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-style sequence diagram," and elaborates with participants, lifelines, messages, and arrow styles. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling diagram tools such as create_flowchart or create_class_diagram without requiring schema inspection.

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 when an interaction or sequence diagram is needed, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide negative guidance. The solid/dashed arrow note helps with message styling but not with tool selection.

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