new_from_mermaid

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the behavioral trait of setting the new diagram as the current context, which is not in annotations. This is useful context beyond the structured data, though it does not disclose error handling or prerequisites.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the input, and the side effect without any redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and structured.

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 is a straightforward creation operation with a side effect. The description states the core purpose and the current-context behavior. An output schema exists (as indicated), so return values are presumably covered elsewhere. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly, though it does not mention potential failure modes or prerequisites.

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 descriptions fully cover all three parameters (name, mermaidCode, extensionProfile) with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Create'), a resource ('a new BPMN diagram from Mermaid code'), and a distinct side effect ('set it as current context'). It differentiates from siblings like new_bpmn (likely empty diagram) and open_mermaid_file (opens existing file) by emphasizing the conversion and context-setting behavior.

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 when you have Mermaid code and want to convert it to BPMN, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as new_bpmn or open_mermaid_file. There is no 'use this when' or 'prefer this over' guidance, leaving the agent to infer context from the purpose.

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