generate_diagram

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Generate a diagram', which implies a mutation but does not explain side effects, whether it overwrites an existing diagram, or what happens in StarUML. The schema adds supported diagram types, but the description itself offers minimal behavioral insight.

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 concise sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It omits important context such as the need for Mermaid code and unsupported diagram types, which are only available in the schema. The brevity is efficient, but it sacrifices useful information that a well-rounded description should include.

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's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and the rich schema description of the parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any mention of return values, side effects, or how it fits with the sibling tools. The gaps prevent it from being fully complete, but the combination of schema and short description covers the essential mechanics.

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 single parameter 'code' is fully documented in the schema with a clear description and a list of supported diagram types, so the description does not need to add much. The description itself mentions no parameter details, but the schema coverage is 100%, making a baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 states a clear action ('Generate') and resource ('a diagram in StarUML'), which is specific enough to understand the tool's core function. It implicitly differs from sibling tools that retrieve diagram information or images, but does not explicitly name them or highlight the distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_*' tools. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or situations where this tool should be preferred. The only usage hint ('Mermaid code') is buried in the schema, not the description.

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