process_launch

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state the core side effect — changing a process from DRAFT to ACTIVE — which is useful. However, it does not mention any authorization requirements, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the process is already ACTIVE, or failure behavior, so some behavioral transparency gaps remain.

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 one short sentence with a compact parenthetical that adds meaningful state information. There is no filler, and the key behavior is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter state-transition tool, the description is largely complete: it identifies the action, the target, and the resulting state. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on expected result or errors would be even more helpful, but the description provides enough context for correct selection and basic 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 description coverage is 100%, so the single processId parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema gives, which is acceptable given the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Launch') and resource ('a process'), and the parenthetical 'moves from DRAFT to ACTIVE' adds a precise state-transition meaning. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like process_create and process_assign_position, which handle different lifecycle stages.

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 parenthetical makes the intended use case clear: this tool is appropriate when a process is in DRAFT and should transition to ACTIVE. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or list alternatives, but the state-transition context effectively signals when it applies.

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