validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool validates for correctness but does not mention that it does not modify the diagram, any authorization requirements, rate limits, or what the output format is (e.g., errors/warnings). This is insufficient for a mutation-free validation 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?

The description is a single 8-word sentence that clearly communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with no extraneous information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., validation errors, success status) or how to interpret results. It fails to do so, leaving an agent without enough information to use the tool effectively.

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 one parameter (level) with a description 'Validation level' and an enum. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much. It adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Validate the current diagram for BPMN correctness' uses a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('current diagram') with clear scope ('BPMN correctness'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which include diagram creation, editing, and export operations, none of which perform validation.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or provide alternatives, but the purpose is straightforward: validation for correctness. Usage is implied (e.g., after editing), but lack of explicit context or exclusions makes it minimally adequate.

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