create_state_diagram

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and covers the essentials: it generates a state diagram, describes the visual notation for initial/final states, and reveals the return value as an absolute path to a .excalidraw file. It does not address side effects such as overwriting existing files at output_path, which keeps it from being a 5.

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 front-loaded, with a one-sentence purpose followed by concise Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of the schema.

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 tool with five parameters and no annotations, the description covers the required info: what the diagram looks like, what each argument is, and what is returned. It could be more complete by noting behavior when output_path is omitted or a file already exists, but nothing essential to making a basic correct call is missing.

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 for top-level parameters is 0%, so the description's Args block is the main source of meaning for states, transitions, title, output_path, and theme. It adds practical value by naming the theme values 'light' or 'dark' and clarifying optionality, though states/transitions are described only at a high level.

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 statement, 'Create a UML state machine diagram,' and reinforces it with the visual elements users can expect (states, initial/final markers, transition arrows with labels). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling diagram tools like create_sequence_diagram or create_flowchart.

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?

Intended use is implied by the phrase 'Create a UML state machine diagram' and the states/transitions parameter descriptions, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives or gives exclusions. No sibling routing or 'use create_flowchart instead' guidance is provided.

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