delete_bpmn_element

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 the mode-selection rule but omits notable behavior such as whether deleting a node also removes its attached connections or how unknown IDs are handled. With annotations carrying the risk signal, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the mode distinction immediately after. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, and the annotations cover the mutation risk, so the essentials are present. Still missing for a destructive tool: cascade behavior on connected elements, handling of nonexistent IDs, and whether the operation is atomic across a bulk array.

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%, so all three parameters including the elementId/elementIds precedence rule are already documented in the schema. The description merely restates that precedence rather than adding format, validation, or failure semantics, 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 (remove) and resource (elements or connections in a BPMN diagram), which cleanly separates it from delete_bpmn_diagram by scope. It never explicitly names the sibling it differs from, so an agent must infer the distinction from the resource noun alone.

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 explains the two invocation modes (single via elementId, bulk via elementIds) and that bulk takes precedence, which is genuine usage guidance. It gives no when-to-use-vs-alternatives context, e.g. no mention of delete_bpmn_diagram for whole-diagram removal or how this interacts with move/layout tools.

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