Single tool 'build_graph' has a reasonable schema with typed parameters and a description, but the description is vague (67 chars, below the 194-char baseline). The 'recipe' parameter accepts both string and object types, creating ambiguity for LLMs about what format to pass. No error handling guidance, no output schema documented, and no indication of what the tool returns or when to use it. The tool name lacks a clear action verb (should be 'build_grasshopper_graph' or similar). No parameter descriptions beyond the recipe field. Missing critical context: does this tool modify files? Is it idempotent? What happens on failure?

• Expand tool description to 150-250 chars: 'Builds a Grasshopper .gh file from a recipe object. Optionally solves the graph and returns diagnostics. Use this to programmatically create Grasshopper definitions from JSON recipes. Returns the output file path and any solver diagnostics.'
• Add descriptions to all parameters: 'recipe' should explain 'JSON object, JSON string, or file path to a recipe definition'; 'outName' should clarify 'Output filename (default: graph.gh)'; 'solve' should state 'If true, solves the graph after building'; 'diag' should state 'If true, returns solver diagnostics'.
• Document the output schema: 'Returns {success: boolean, filePath: string, diagnostics?: string}' so LLMs know what to expect.
• Add error handling guidance: 'If recipe is invalid, returns error with details. If file write fails, check disk space and permissions. Retry with a simpler recipe if solver times out.'
• Rename tool to 'create_grasshopper_graph' or 'build_gh_file' to make the action and domain explicit.