sketchwright_validate_diagram

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that validation covers schema conformance and bindings, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid input, whether errors are thrown or returned, or what side effects, if any, occur. Those gaps matter for an agent deciding how to handle the result.

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 inputs, and the validation criteria without any filler. Every element earns its place and the agent can read the core purpose immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify the relationship between the two optional parameters, such as whether one is required and how to choose between them. It is adequate but leaves important invocation details implicit.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by mapping the two schema properties to 'diagram specification' and 'Excalidraw scene JSON', which is more informative than the bare 'specification' and 'scene' titles. However, it does not clarify that both parameters are optional, whether at least one should be provided, or whether they are mutually exclusive.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Validate', and names the two resource forms it handles: a diagram specification and an Excalidraw scene JSON. It also specifies what is checked, 'schema conformance and bindings', so the tool's function is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as create, update, or layout.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like sketchwright_create_diagram, sketchwright_update_diagram, or sketchwright_layout_diagram. It implies validation of a spec or scene but does not state when validation should be performed, whether it is a prerequisite for another operation, or when not to use it.

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