add_event_with_trigger

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only offers 'Agrega' (adds). It does not state whether the tool mutates an in-memory process model, creates and returns a new process, what side effects occur, or how the parameters shape the resulting BPMN, leaving the operation's consequences opaque.

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 is easy to parse and wastes no words. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than efficient completeness—it omits trigger semantics, parameter meaning, and usage context.

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 tool with three untyped parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a dense sibling landscape, this description is insuffcient. It omits the trigger behavior implied by the name, the meaning of every parameter, and the relationship to close siblings like create_process_with_timer and create_process_with_boundary_events, so an agent cannot reliably construct a correct invocation.

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%: all three parameters (attached_to_ref, timer_definition, condition_expression) are untyped shells with no schema descriptions, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining any of them. An agent gets no help inferring that attached_to_ref likely targets a boundary-event anchor or that timer_definition/condition_expression are the 'trigger' payload, so parameter semantics are effectively undocumented.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Agrega un evento') and enumerates the four event types (start/intermediate/end/boundary), so the core action is clear and not confusable with validation/creation/reading siblings. However, it never mentions the 'trigger' behavior implied by the tool name, and 'a un proceso nvevo' is ambiguous—it could mean the event is added while creating a new process, which slightly blurs the boundary against create_process_with_timer and create_process_with_boundary_events.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not say whether this tool is a building block to call after create_simple_linear_process, whether it substitutes for create_process_with_timer, or what conditions select it over the many event-related siblings, so an agent has no basis for choosing it.

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