process_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add valuable context by specifying the created process will be in DRAFT status, but it does not disclose side effects, return values, required permissions, or any error behavior. This is minimal but not wholly inadequate for a simple create operation.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and state. Every word earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema details or irrelevant information.

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?

The tool itself is simple with fully documented optional parameters, but the description omits important surrounding context: it does not mention authentication requirements, whether a company must be selected first (as hinted by company_select sibling), or what the tool returns. These gaps are notable given the absence of annotations and an output schema.

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% with all three parameters having descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create'), identifies the resource ('a new eTalent process'), and adds the meaningful state ('in DRAFT status'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like process_launch, which suggest activating rather than creating a process.

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?

The usage is implied by the action 'Create' - an agent would understand to call this when needing to create a draft process. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no mention of prerequisites, and no differentiation from alternatives such as process_launch or process_assign_position.

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