bpmn_history

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the rest and does so well: it names the underlying command-stack mechanism, notes multi-step support, and warns that a specific class of operations (boundary-event repositioning and the normaliseOrigin fallback) is not undoable. It does not say what happens when the stack is empty or exhausted.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, mechanism second, exception third. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers action semantics, step handling, and the important incompatibility with layout operations. It leaves some gaps around empty/failed history behavior and whether it targets the currently loaded diagram, but nothing essential to invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of multi-step undo/redo mirrors the 'steps' parameter without adding format or boundary detail (e.g., max steps, behavior past the stack depth).

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?

States a specific verb pair (undo/redo) and resource (BPMN diagram changes) and explains the mechanism (bpmn-js command stack). No sibling among the ~20 list does history reversal, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Makes clear this is the tool for reversing or re-applying prior edits, and adds a valuable boundary condition: changes made by layout_bpmn_diagram are outside the command stack and cannot be undone. It stops short of stating explicit when-not conditions (e.g., what to do if there is no history).

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