Запустить элемент процесса

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

Annotations already indicate not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent. Description adds the service endpoint and use case, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., state changes on failure) or error behavior. This is adequate given annotations cover safety.

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?

Two short sentences, no fluff. First sentence states the action and endpoint, second explains the use case. 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and full schema coverage, the description and annotations together provide sufficient context. Could mention what the tool returns or fails, but no output schema exists, so it's not required.

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 fully describes the single parameter (element_uid) with a detailed explanation of its format and purpose. The description does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool resumes suspended process elements by calling a specific service endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools that start new processes (e.g., bpm_run_process). The verb 'resume' and noun 'suspended elements' are specific and actionable.

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 resuming suspended elements in an already executing process, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., if process is completed). There's no 'when-not' guidance.

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