Operaton MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains that the error 'trigger[s] the boundary error event on the process,' which describes the mechanism. However, it omits critical behavioral details like whether the task is ended/interrupted, if the operation is reversible, or what permissions are required.

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?

Two sentences, optimally structured: first defines the action and mechanism, second states the usage intent. No redundant words or tangential information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 state-changing operation (mutation) with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the BPMN concept well but doesn't clarify the resulting task state (is it completed? interrupted?) or process side effects beyond the boundary event trigger.

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 contains zero parameters. With no parameters to document, the baseline score applies. The description implicitly confirms parameter-less usage by referencing 'a user task' without qualification, suggesting task context is implicit (likely from the current execution context).

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 clearly states the specific action ('Throw a BPMN error'), the source ('from a user task'), and the mechanism ('triggering the boundary error event'). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling task operations like task_complete, the BPMN-specific terminology strongly signals its distinct purpose.

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 second sentence provides explicit usage context: 'Use to signal an exceptional condition during task execution.' This gives a clear when-to-use scenario. However, it lacks when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g., when to use task_complete vs this error throw).

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