ecp_supervisor_start_process

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that a process is started, but does not explain idempotency, failure behavior, whether the process must already be registered, or what the result/response will be.

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 single sentence is terse and has no wasted words, so it is concise. However, it is so short that it does not convey context beyond the tool name, making it more under-specified 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this minimal description leaves out when to call it, how the process is identified, and what happens after the call. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it with confidence, especially given the nearby add/restart/stop siblings.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and a description that never mentions app_name, the description adds no meaning beyond the raw property name. For the sole required parameter, this is insufficient compensation.

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 a specific verb ('start') and a resource ('a supervised process'), and the sibling set includes stop/restart/remove, so the basic intent is clear. It does not, however, distinguish this from ecp_supervisor_add_process, which could overlap functionally.

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?

There is no guidance about when to start versus add, list, or restart a supervised process, and no mention of prerequisites such as the process already existing. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the terse sentence.

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