fluig_process_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and partially meets it: it discloses the auth model (acts as the user, requires the start role) and the return shape {processInstanceId, rows}. It does not describe failure behavior, whether a card is created, or the irreversible consequences of starting an instance in production — a meaningful gap for a write tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Four dense sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the action verb and immediately followed by the two parameters most likely to be misused. The telegraphic style costs a little readability but nothing is wasted.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description usefully supplies the return contract {processInstanceId, rows} and the auth requirement, which the structured fields don't cover. The remaining gap is error/irreversibility semantics, but with three required params, an env enum, and a confirm flag all fully documented in the schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description glosses cardData and choosedState, but choosedState's clarification ("estado destino ao concluir o início, ex.: gateway seguinte") largely repeats the schema's own wording, adding little beyond it.

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+resource ("INICIA uma solicitação") and maps it to the underlying SOAP call (startProcess), which pins down exactly which operation it is. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with overlapping siblings like fluig_process_move or fluig_process_create, but the 'start a new request' framing makes the distinction inferable.

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?

"Autentica como o usuário (precisa do papel de início)" gives a real precondition for when the call will succeed. Beyond that, there is no guidance on when to choose this over fluig_process_move (advancing an existing task) or fluig_process_create, nor any exclusion conditions.

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