bpmn_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does well: it discloses filesystem writes, where outputs land (out_dir under the current working folder), what stage 'all' additionally produces (PNG, .bpmn, Camunda import check), and the full response shape (ok, errors, warnings, files, log). It does not say whether existing files are overwritten or what permissions/setup are needed, which is the remaining behavioral gap for a write tool.

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?

One lead sentence followed by terse per-parameter lines and a returns line, with no filler. The most decision-critical constraint (draft vs. approved stages) is stated inline where the agent will look for it.

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?

For a five-parameter tool with an unconstrained nested spec object and no output schema, the description supplies the return fields and behavioral constraints, and correctly offloads spec structure to bpmn_spec_guide. It is nearly complete, but the absence of any mention of bpmn_setup_check leaves the workflow entry point ambiguous.

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 one of the five parameters is explained beyond its name: spec is the JSON object defined in bpmn_spec_guide, name is the extensionless file name with an allowed character set, out_dir is resolved under the current working folder, stage enumerates its two values with intent, and preview is defined separately for each stage.

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 opening sentence names concrete verbs and resource: 'Lay out and check a diagram, and write the files' — an agent knows exactly what comes out. It also differentiates itself from bpmn_spec_guide by delegating spec format there ('see bpmn_spec_guide').

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 stage parameter carries explicit when-to-use guidance: 'svg' = 'use while drafting', 'all' = 'use only after the user approved the drawing', and the return line instructs 'fix every one and build again'. The one gap is that the sibling bpmn_setup_check (a likely prerequisite) is never mentioned, so the ordering relative to it must be inferred.

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