add_text_annotation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, indicating mutation. The description adds the behavioral fact that an association may be created, which is beyond the annotation's binary mutation flag. However, it does not disclose side effects on the existing element (e.g., whether it modifies the element) or any failure modes. Given annotations carry the core mutation trait, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and the optional clause adds value without bloat. Every word 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?

The tool has 5 parameters (including nested objects) and an output schema. The description covers the fundamental action but omits any mention of context, such as that the annotation is added to the current diagram or any error conditions. However, given the schema fully documents parameters and the output schema exists, the description is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.

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%, meaning all parameters have descriptive text. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond highlighting the optional association, which is already captured in the associatedElementId description. Thus the description does not meaningfully augment the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'Add' and the specific resource 'BPMN text annotation', and notes the optional association. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_event or add_activity, which target different element types. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'optionally associated' but does not explain when linking is appropriate or when to use add_association instead. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions for choosing this over other add-* tools.

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