add_event

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

All annotations are false, providing no safety or mutation hints, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Add', implying a mutation, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or failure modes (e.g., invalid eventType or BPMN constraints). This is inadequate for a complex modeling 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, concise sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently states the core purpose. However, given the tool's 9 complex parameters and nested objects, the description could arguably be slightly more informative, but it remains appropriately brief for a schema that is self-documenting.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema and detailed parameter descriptions, the tool description provides no high-level context about event types (start, end, boundary, etc.), parameter interrelations, or common usage patterns. It fails to synthesize the schema's information into a usable mental model, leaving an agent without guidance on selecting appropriate configurations.

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%, with detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., `eventType` enum, `attachTo` conditions, `cancelActivity` rules). The description adds no parameter-level information, so it relies entirely on the schema, which is the baseline when coverage is high. No extra value is provided.

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 tool adds an event to the current diagram, specifying the verb (add), resource (event), and context (current diagram). This is distinct from sibling add_* tools because 'event' is a specific BPMN element type, though the description does not explicitly contrast with `add_activity` or `add_gateway`.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `add_activity`, `add_gateway`, or `add_pool`. The description simply states the action without mentioning exclusions, contexts, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.

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