kickoff_procedure

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral details such as side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or what 'starting' a procedure entails. The agent is left without critical information about the mutation's impact.

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 concise as a single sentence, but it is under-specified. While it avoids fluff, it lacks essential details about the procedure, making it minimally adequate rather than well-structured.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand parameter semantics, expected return, or contextual prerequisites. The tool appears to be a mutation but provides no details about the process it triggers.

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?

The input schema includes three parameters (id, name, asset_id) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the meaning or purpose of any parameter, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid invocation beyond knowing 'id' is required.

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 uses specific verbs 'Start/kickoff' and clearly identifies the resource 'Procedure', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_procedure, update_procedure, and list_procedures. The phrase 'from a company process' adds context and clarifies the intended action.

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 versus alternatives such as create_procedure, create_procedure_from_template, or duplicate_procedure. The description only states the action without exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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