BPMN-MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool exports XML, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, if it modifies the diagram, what happens on errors, or the format/scope of the exported XML. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary details.

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 (export operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the exported XML contains, how it's structured, or any limitations (e.g., size, supported BPMN versions). For a tool with no structured data to compensate, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 'diagramId' documented as 'The diagram ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as where to find the ID or its format. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the 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?

The description 'Export a BPMN diagram as XML' clearly states the action (export) and resource (BPMN diagram) with the output format (XML). It distinguishes from siblings like 'export_bpmn_svg' by specifying XML instead of SVG, but doesn't fully differentiate from 'import_bpmn_xml' which involves the same format for input.

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., needing an existing diagram), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'export_bpmn_svg' for different output formats or 'list_bpmn_elements' for viewing without export.

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