alterios_start_process

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It notes 'creates workflow side effects', implying mutation, but does not disclose if actions are destructive, reversible, or require special permissions. The dry_run parameter defaults to true, which is not mentioned, leaving uncertainty about default behavior.

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 very concise at two sentences, but the second sentence is vague ('Execution creates workflow side effects'). While succinct, it sacrifices useful detail that could be added without much length.

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 (10 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It does not cover parameter semantics, use cases, or expected outcomes. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of input guidance.

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 meaning to any of the 10 parameters. It does not explain the purpose of key fields like name, params, dry_run, diagram_id, etc. This is a critical gap given the high parameter count.

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 or starts a BPMN process, which is a specific action on a clear resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like alterios_list_process_tasks or alterios_complete_task. However, the dual 'plan or start' could be ambiguous, slightly reducing 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not explain the difference between 'plan' and 'start', nor when each is appropriate. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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