map_user_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that providing projectId saves the diagram to the project, which is a useful side-effect hint. However, it omits details on permissions, whether saving overwrites or creates, and what the return value is (e.g., Mermaid text vs. saved object), leaving significant gaps.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words, front-loading the core purpose. Could be slightly more structured, but the information is efficiently delivered.

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 nested step objects, no output schema, and an optional save behavior, the description should clarify what is returned (e.g., Mermaid string) and what happens when projectId is omitted. It also doesn't address error conditions or the required 'name' parameter's role, leaving the agent with critical unknowns.

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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate: it never explains the 'name' parameter, does not describe the top-level 'steps' shape (array of objects), and only partially clarifies decision edges which are already documented in the schema. 'ends' and 'next' are not mentioned in the description.

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?

States a specific verb (Generate) and resource (Mermaid flowchart) from a list of steps, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_flows or delete_flow. An agent can immediately understand what the tool produces.

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 usage for generating flowcharts from steps, and mentions the optional projectId for saving, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or conditions for choosing this over other flow-related tools. Guidance is only implicit.

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