render_erd

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the three output files and the write action, but does not mention side effects like overwrite behavior or error handling. The mutation is clear, but additional details would improve transparency.

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 a single sentence that conveys key information efficiently. It is front-loaded with the core action, and every part adds value. Could be slightly more structured by listing outputs separately, but overall concise.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It focuses on the output files but fails to explain how to specify the input schema (source_path, source_text, source_type) or expected return values, leaving significant gaps.

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 only 25% (only out_path described). The description does not explain other parameters (source_path, source_text, source_type) nor the enum options, failing to compensate for the schema gaps.

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 verb 'Generate a Mermaid ERD' and the resource 'from a schema', and specifies the write-to-disk action. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the file output side effect, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'schema_to_erd' which might just return text.

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 context by noting the output is for embedding without copy-paste, implying a specific use case. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives like siblings.

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