alterios_create_process_flow

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

With zero annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions 'plan or apply' and 'optional process smoke'. It does not state whether the tool is read-only or destructive, what side effects occur (e.g., process creation, data modification), authorization needs, or rate limits. The ambiguity of 'plan or apply' adds confusion rather than transparency.

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 sentence of 14 words, which is concise but lacks structure. For a tool with 30 parameters, a more structured format (e.g., bullet points summarizing key inputs and behavior) would improve usability without much added length. The current brevity sacrifices informativeness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (30 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and a likely complex output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'plan or apply' means, what the output looks like, how to use the tool step by step, or how it fits with sibling process tools. A comprehensive description is necessary for correct invocation.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions), and the description mentions only three parameter categories (task form, diagram, script refs, process smoke) out of 30 parameters. It does not explain the purpose of key parameters like dry_run, plan_id, profile, or the many optional fields. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names in the schema.

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 states it plans/applies a BPMN scenario with task form, diagram, script refs, and optional smoke, which gives a general idea. However, the verb 'plan or apply' is ambiguous (are they two modes?), and it does not distinguish from sibling tools like alterios_upsert_bpmn_diagram or alterios_start_process. A more precise verb like 'creates' and explicit differentiation would improve clarity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the large number of sibling tools, this omission severely hinders appropriate tool selection.

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