validate_diagram

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does so effectively. It describes behavioral aspects like handling partial or complete diagram code, providing line-specific errors and warnings, and positioning in a validate→fix→create workflow. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers core operational behavior thoroughly.

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 well-structured with clear XML-like sections (purpose, when-to-use, when-not-to-use, examples, parameters, output-types, workflow-position) that make it easy to parse. Every section adds value with no redundant information, and the content is appropriately sized for a tool with clear sibling relationships and behavioral complexity.

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 complexity (validation with detailed feedback), no annotations, no output schema, and clear sibling tools, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, examples, parameter semantics, output types, and workflow positioning. The only minor gap is lack of explicit error format details, but the output-types section provides sufficient high-level understanding.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that content can be 'partial or complete' (not in schema) and that diagramType 'must match the actual diagram type for accurate validation' (emphasizing importance). This provides practical usage guidance that enhances parameter understanding.

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 'Check Eraser diagram syntax for errors and provide detailed feedback about validity' with a specific verb ('check'), resource ('Eraser diagram syntax'), and outcome ('errors and detailed feedback'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools create_diagram and fix_diagram by focusing on validation rather than creation or correction.

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 guidance with dedicated <when-to-use> and <when-not-to-use> sections that list specific scenarios and alternatives. It names sibling tools (create_diagram, fix_diagram) for when not to use this tool, and includes example user queries to illustrate appropriate contexts.

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