processon_design_diagram

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses that the tool returns editable Mermaid source, not a rendered image, that the LLM is expected to refine the output, and that the final rendering is delegated to a sibling. It also enumerates supported diagram types, giving the agent a precise mental model of what the tool produces and what its role is in the pipeline.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then structured into clear sections (workflow, args). It is longer than minimal, but every part contributes value: the workflow explains the full lifecycle, the args section is essential given the sparse schema, and the supported types list is useful. Slight redundancy exists (e.g., 'editable' appears twice), but it remains efficient overall.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown here), so the description correctly avoids detailing return structure. It covers the input parameters, the workflow integration with siblings, the supported diagram types, and the expected usage pattern. For a design/planning tool, nothing essential is missing—an agent can confidently call it correctly based on this description alone.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema itself provides only types and titles with no descriptions. The description compensates fully with an 'Args' section that explains the prompt parameter as 'What the diagram should describe' and diagram_type with concrete examples ('flowchart', 'mindmap', 'sequence', 'er', etc.). This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema and gives the agent everything needed to craft valid inputs.

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 clear, specific verb-resource pair: 'Turn an idea into a Mermaid diagram definition (DSL)' and immediately frames it as the planning/first-draft step. It distinguishes itself from the render sibling by stating it returns editable source code, not a rendered image, and even names the alternative tool. This fully disambiguates it from processon_render_mermaid and other siblings.

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 explicitly says 'Use this FIRST when you want to design a diagram from scratch' and provides a step-by-step recommended workflow (1-4) that tells the agent exactly when to call design_diagram and when to move to render_mermaid. It also clarifies the diagram_type parameter as a hint and says to leave it empty to infer. This gives clear, actionable usage context with no ambiguity.

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