add_activity

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

Annotations provide no substantive behavior (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.). The description does not disclose side effects, return values, or whether the diagram must be open. For a tool that mutates state, this is a major gap.

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 one short phrase, but it adds little beyond the tool name. For a tool with six parameters and nested objects, this is under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness. Important context is missing.

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 the complex schema (activityType enum, properties, multiInstance, position), the description is woefully incomplete. It explains nothing about activity types, property usage, or how this fits into the diagram editing workflow. An agent gets no contextual help beyond the schema.

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 coverage is 100%—every parameter has a description in the input schema. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. No additional semantic value is provided beyond the schema.

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 clear verb-resource pair: 'Add an activity to the current diagram'. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like add_event or add_gateway, though it relies partly on the tool name. It is not a tautology.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as add_event or add_gateway. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context clues beyond the bare action. An agent must infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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