BPMN-MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a new diagram and returns an ID, which implies a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects (e.g., if creation is idempotent or has rate limits). This is a significant gap for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is extremely concise—two sentences that directly state the action and the return value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value's format beyond 'diagram ID', error conditions, or how the ID integrates with sibling tools. For a tool that likely initiates a workflow (e.g., followed by 'add_bpmn_element'), more context is needed.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'name' parameter documented as optional. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'BPMN diagram', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'import_bpmn_xml' or 'list_bpmn_elements' by focusing on creation rather than import or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'add_bpmn_element' might be ambiguous), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., if a diagram must be created before using 'add_bpmn_element'), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'import_bpmn_xml' for existing diagrams. This leaves the agent with minimal context for selection.

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