fluig_process_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does flag '⚠️ ESCRITA' (WRITE) and warns to use on disposable processes, which is valuable mutation context. However, it omits permissions required, reversibility/deletion of the created skeleton, and failure behavior, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences — the write warning leads, followed by purpose and usage routing. No wasted text, and the warning is appropriately prominent.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does and when to use it, but does not explain return values or permission/rollback context. Adequate but with noticeable gaps for a write tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters in detail, including the critical env enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Cria o esqueleto de um processo novo' (creates the skeleton of a new process). This is clearly distinct from siblings like fluig_process_start or fluig_deploy_process, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not.

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?

Provides explicit usage direction: 'Use para processo DESCARTÁVEL de teste (prefixo ZZ_TESTE_*) em vez de experimentar em processo com solicitações abertas' — tells the agent to target disposable test processes rather than experimenting on live ones. It gives clear context and an implicit exclusion, but doesn't name a specific alternative tool for non-test scenarios.

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