human_design_bodygraph

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by detailing the output format (SVG/png), credit cost, and the inline display behavior. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond annotations, such as statelessness or any side effects.

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 (5 sentences) with no redundant information. It front-loads the main purpose, then provides details, an example, and credit cost. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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 the tool complexity (generating a detailed SVG), the description covers input requirements, output format, style options, cost, and an example. It also explains that the SVG displays inline in Claude, which is crucial for agent understanding. No gaps are apparent.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it highlights the time-sensitivity of the datetime parameter ('accuracy to the minute matters'), explains the aesthetic styles, and clarifies the default format and raster option. This adds significant value.

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 clearly states 'Generate a Human Design Bodygraph image (SVG) from a birth datetime (UTC)', specifying the verb (generate) and resource (bodygraph SVG). It details the components (9 centers, 36 channels, 64 gates) and distinguishes from sibling tools like human_design_chart by focusing on the visual bodygraph output.

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 provides an explicit example and mentions credit cost and format options, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings like human_design_chart. The usage is implied by the focus on visual bodygraph, but no 'when-not' or alternatives are given.

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