validate_bpmn_diagram

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds significant behavioral detail: returns structured issues with rule names, severities, element IDs, documentation URLs, and fix suggestions as concrete MCP tool calls. This goes well beyond annotations, though it doesn't mention performance or determinism.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and engine, followed by return value details and configuration options. No filler, every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return values but still summarizes them helpfully. It covers default configuration, custom overrides, and validation severity behavior. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool.

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% – all parameters (diagramId, config, lintMinSeverity) are fully described in the schema. The description mentions 'config overrides' and 'bpmnlint:recommended by default', which slightly reinforces the schema but adds no new syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Validate a BPMN diagram') and the engine used ('bpmnlint rules'). No sibling tool performs validation, so the purpose is unambiguous from the name and description.

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?

Clear context: validating a BPMN diagram against bpmnlint rules. It mentions default config ('bpmnlint:recommended by default with tuning for AI-generated diagrams') and custom overrides, implying when to use defaults vs. custom. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative, but the validation function is singular in the toolset.

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