create_bpmn_participant

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries real behavioral load: the Camunda 7 constraint that only one pool is executable and additional pools must be collapsed is genuine domain semantics an agent could not infer elsewhere. It stops short of stating permissions or what the call returns, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Five short sentences, each tied to a distinct mode or constraint, with the primary use case front-loaded. No filler and no repetition of coordinate/default details that the schema already owns.

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 13-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the mode-selection logic, the wrap-existing workflow, and the Camunda 7 constraint, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits any note on post-creation return or how the new pool interacts with existing collaboration state, a minor gap.

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% and the schema already documents each parameter, including that participants ignores single-pool params and that wrapExisting requires name. The description's mode framing (name vs wrapExisting vs participants) is a useful synthesis but largely restates structured data, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create participant(s) (pools) in a BPMN diagram') and immediately disambiguates against the sibling lane tool by prescribing lanes for intra-organization role separation. An agent can distinguish this from create_bpmn_lanes and add_bpmn_elements without opening a schema.

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?

Enumerates the three concrete invocation modes (single pool via name, wrapExisting=true, multi-pool via participants with min 2) and gives an explicit when-not: use lanes inside one pool rather than multiple expanded pools. Alternatives and conditions are spelled out rather than implied.

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