add_bpmn_element

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It does not state whether the modeler must be open, whether changes are reversible, what is returned, or what permissions are required for adding elements.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though for a nine-parameter mutation tool it provides minimal structure beyond the bare statement.

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 nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits prerequisites, return behavior, and how this tool relates to siblings needed before or after adding an element.

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 nine parameters are already documented with descriptions, including the elementType enum. The description's examples ('task, gateway, event, etc.') add minimal meaning beyond the schema, fitting the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 and resource ('Add an element') and clarifies the context with examples ('task, gateway, event, etc.'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as create_bpmn_diagram, connect_bpmn_elements, or list_bpmn_elements.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The schema mentions create_bpmn_diagram for diagramId, but that is structured field context, not description-level guidance.

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