new_bpmn

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

The description discloses that it creates a diagram and sets it as the current context, which is a side effect. Annotations are minimal (all false), so the description carries the burden. However, it doesn't mention whether the diagram is persisted, what happens to the previous current diagram, or any error conditions. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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 that front-loads the primary action and key side effect. No filler or redundant content. It efficiently conveys the essence.

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 simple creation tool with fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate but lacks usage guidance and detailed behavioral context (e.g., where the diagram is stored, effect on existing state). It covers the minimum but leaves some gaps that an agent might need.

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% for all three parameters (name, type, extensionProfile), each with clear descriptions and enums. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action (create) and resource (BPMN diagram) and an additional effect (set as current context). It distinguishes from siblings like open_bpmn (open existing) and new_from_mermaid (create from mermaid), making the tool's purpose 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 doesn't mention conditions, exclusions, or when to prefer other tools like new_from_mermaid for mermaid-derived diagrams. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name and sibling list.

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