ecp_supervisor_add_process

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

The 'auto-restarting' phrase adds a useful behavioral hint, but since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It does not mention that this mutates supervisor configuration, how duplicate names are handled, whether permissions are required, or what a successful registration returns.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes, and the phrase 'auto-restarting' adds useful context beyond the tool name.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits required-field semantics, value formats, side effects, and what the agent can expect after calling it, so the agent is left guessing.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning at all. It does not explain what name, command, directory, autostart, or environment mean or how they must be provided, despite the nested environment object and required fields.

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 identifies the verb 'register' and the object 'a new supervised (auto-restarting) process', so the core action is clear. It distinguishes the tool from start/stop/remove/process_info reasonably well, but it does not explicitly compare it to those sibling tools.

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 about when to use this tool instead of ecp_supervisor_start_process, ecp_supervisor_process_info, ecp_supervisor_remove_process, etc. The word 'new' implies a use case, but it does not state exclusions or the correct alternative for existing processes.

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