draw_sequence_diagram

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains the input and output format but omits details about side effects, idempotency, or permission requirements, which leaves some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the main purpose and immediately detailing accepted types, with no wasted words.

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 complexity of creating a diagram, the description covers the core inputs and output format well. However, it lacks information on where the .drawio file is saved or returned, and does not mention error conditions or constraints.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description lists participant and message types and their ordering, adding significant meaning beyond the raw schema. It explains the structure of participants and messages, but misses the 'title' parameter.

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 the tool creates a UML sequence diagram as a .drawio file, listing specific participant types and message types, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like draw_class_diagram or draw_activity_diagram.

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 creating sequence diagrams but does not explicitly guide when to prefer this tool over alternatives like draw_class_diagram or provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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