fix_diagram

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and delivers substantial behavioral context. It details specific fixes applied (arrow syntax corrections, missing bracket/brace/quote fixes, shape name corrections), output format details (list of fixes, corrected code, validation status), and workflow positioning. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements, but provides rich operational context.

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 comprehensive but verbose with XML-style markup. While well-structured with clear sections (purpose, when-to-use, when-not-to-use, examples, fixes-applied, parameters, output-format, workflow-position), it could be more concise. Every section adds value, but the markup adds unnecessary length.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a 2-parameter tool with mutation behavior, the description provides exceptional completeness. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details, parameter context, output format, workflow positioning, and concrete examples. For a tool that modifies content, this level of disclosure is comprehensive.

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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful context: it explains that 'content' is 'the diagram code to fix - will be analyzed and corrected' and that 'diagramType' 'must match the diagram type for appropriate fixes'. This provides practical guidance beyond the schema's technical specifications.

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 explicitly states the purpose as 'Automatically fix common syntax errors in Eraser diagrams and return corrected version' - a specific verb ('fix'), resource ('Eraser diagrams'), and outcome ('return corrected version'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools validate_diagram (diagnostic) and create_diagram (creation).

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 explicit when-to-use scenarios (user asks to fix/correct/repair, after validate_diagram finds auto-correctable errors) and when-not-to-use scenarios (user only wants diagnostics, diagram already valid, design/structural changes needed). It names specific alternatives (validate_diagram, create_diagram) and provides workflow context.

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