create_process_with_decision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It only says the tool creates a BPMN process with an exclusive gateway; it does not mention what else happens, whether files are written, whether validation occurs, what the output is, or any side effects or prerequisites.

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 clear sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and key distinguishing detail. It is not verbose, but a bit more contextual guidance would make it more useful without harming conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, this description is too thin for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with confidence. It explains the high-level purpose but omits parameter semantics, behavior, and return/output expectations.

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% and the description provides no meaning for the two parameters, 'description' and 'merge_tasks'. The agent must guess their types and roles; 'merge_tasks' is especially ambiguous without any explanation.

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 states a specific action ('Crea un proceso BPMN') and a specific resource type ('con gateway exclusivo (decisión binaria)'), which distinguishes it from linear and parallel process creators. It is clear and purposeful, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool as the alternative.

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 usage context is implied by the phrase 'gateway exclusivo (decisión binaria)': an agent can infer this tool is for processes requiring an exclusive/binary decision point. However, there is no explicit 'use this when' guidance, no exclusions, and no direct comparison with siblings like create_simple_linear_process or create_process_with_parallel.

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