export_bpmn

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint; the description carries substantial extra burden: lint gating and its bypass, the sentence-level note that PNG/animated/HTML always write to filePath, optional-dependency failures that name the missing package, and the size-threshold behavior where large xml/svg returns a bpmn:// resource_link plus summary while binary formats return only a confirmation. That is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core action and format list before secondary concerns. Every sentence carries information, though the wall-of-text format with many embedded parentheticals makes it less scannable than it could be for 12 parameters.

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 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explicitly covers return behavior (inline text, resource_link for oversized output, confirmation-only for binary), dependency failure modes, and lint interaction. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 the schema descriptions already document fps, scale, inline, encoder, filePath, scenario, skipLint, etc. in detail, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces and slightly extends this (e.g., 'both' writes the XML portion, elementId skips lint gating), but adds little the schema does not already state.

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?

The description opens with a precise verb+resource ("Export a BPMN diagram") and enumerates every supported output format, immediately distinguishing it from the create/add/delete/list siblings. An agent can tell exactly what this tool produces without opening the 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?

It gives clear in-tool decision guidance: default behavior runs bpmnlint and blocks on errors, skipLint=true bypasses, elementId is scoped to xml/svg/both, format 'both' bundles XML+SVG, and inline=true forces full text. It does not name any sibling alternative, but no competing export tool exists, so the when-to-use context is effectively complete.

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