diagram_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that relative paths resolve against the process cwd and that no write occurs without a path, but it does not mention overwrite behavior, return values, or error conditions for a write operation.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds relevant information: the core write action, path resolution behavior, and the no-write guard.

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?

For a one-parameter export tool, the description covers the destination, format, and path resolution. It is missing explicit overwrite semantics and return behavior, which would be useful for a write operation with no annotations and no output schema.

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 already documents the single path parameter with 100% coverage, including an example. The description adds minor context about cwd-relative resolution, but the schema carries most of the parameter meaning, 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 the action (write), the resource (current diagram), and the output format (.drawio) to an explicit filesystem path. It is distinct from the sibling tools by nature, but it does not explicitly name a sibling or state what it is not, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 intended use is implied: export the current diagram to a file. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over diagram_snapshot, diagram_restore, or other siblings, and no when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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