bind_arrows

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral trait: it uses actual rendered dimensions, which is why shapes must be created first. It also notes that arrow endpoints are computed from these dimensions. While it doesn't cover all side effects (e.g., idempotency, error handling), it adds significant non-obvious behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then gives the critical usage order, and ends with a requirement. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 tool with a complex nested parameter and no output schema, the description provides essential context (create shapes first, reference existing IDs). It does not explain behaviors like parallel arrow gaps, but those are covered in the schema's item descriptions. Overall, it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage for the top-level 'arrows' parameter, so the description must compensate. It only mentions that each arrow needs startElementId/endElementId, without explaining the array structure or the richer properties like gap, snap, or labelOffset. The nested property descriptions in the schema are helpful, but the description itself adds minimal parameter-level meaning.

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 'Bind arrows to shapes using actual rendered dimensions for precise edge-to-edge connections,' which specifies the exact action and resource. It also differentiates from sibling tools like create_element by emphasizing the use of actual rendered dimensions and the reliance on pre-existing shapes.

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 explicitly instructs to call this tool AFTER batch_create_elements (shapes only), providing clear timing and prerequisite context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the order dependency is a strong usage guideline.

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