update_process

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the merge semantics, id-based replace-vs-append behavior, removal keys, fresh layout regeneration, and overwrite behavior. It does not cover failure modes or explicitly state what happens to omitted spec fields, but overall transparency is strong.

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 well structured and front-loaded: core edit/regenerate behavior comes first, followed by merge rules and a terse args list. Every sentence earns its place, and the overwrite safety note is compact but important.

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 four parameters and the free-form nested changes object, the description is largely complete, and the output schema exists so return values need not be explained. It would be more complete if it defined 'spec' or pointed to get_spec_reference, since 'same keys as a spec' assumes vocabulary the agent may not already have.

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 0%, yet every parameter is meaningfully documented: file_path identifies the target, changes is explained as a partial spec with merge/deletion semantics, output_path specifies destination and default behavior, and overwrite is clarified as required for existing files. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Edit an existing .bpmn file', and adds the distinctive behavior of merging changes and regenerating the diagram. This clearly separates it from siblings like create_process, read_process, and validate_process even without naming them explicitly.

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 establishes clear context: this is for editing an existing BPMN file, not creating or reading one. It also provides a practical condition, stating that overwrite is required when writing over an existing file. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, which prevents a 5.

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