add_data_object

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

Annotations are all false (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive) but provide no positive behavioral signals. The description adds the key fact that it creates both a visible reference and a non-rendered backing object, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether it can overwrite, or any other behavioral traits beyond that.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and the dual-artifact nature. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words, though it could add a brief usage note without becoming verbose.

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 tool has 6 parameters, a nested object, and an output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It explains the core purpose but omits guidance on collaboration edge cases (e.g., when ownerId is needed) or any preconditions. The schema and output schema compensate partly, but the description could do more.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but the dual-artifact framing helps understand how name/position relate. Since the schema already documents every parameter, no further compensation is needed.

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 verb ('Add') and a specific resource ('BPMN data object reference and its non-rendered backing data object'), clearly identifying what the tool does. It distinguishes this from other add_* tools by focusing on data objects, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage for adding data objects but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like add_event, add_activity, or add_gateway. The schema hint about ownerId being required in collaborations is useful but lives in the schema, not the description.

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