delete_bpmn_diagram

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful piece of context not in the annotations — that the store is in-memory — but says nothing about cascading effects on contained elements or irreversibility.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word carries information and the verb leads.

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 tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits the one thing an agent would want to know about a destructive diagram-level delete — whether child elements are removed with it.

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% with a single parameter whose description ('The ID of the diagram to delete') is already complete. The prose adds no format, source, or lookup detail beyond the schema, so 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 (remove) and resource (diagram) plus a scope qualifier (in-memory store), which separates it from the element-level sibling delete_bpmn_element. It does not explicitly name any sibling, but the resource noun makes the distinction inferable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus delete_bpmn_element or when to prefer re-creating versus deleting a diagram. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of what happens to the diagram's elements.

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