tqs_process

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveness, but the description goes further by specifying exactly what gets overwritten (calculation results and drawings) and that it can run for many minutes. This adds valuable context about side effects and time cost that annotations alone do not convey.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by critical behavioral traits. It is minimal, free of repetition, and the pointer to the tqsexec reference is a useful, non-redundant addition.

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 is complex (5 params, destructive, long-running) and has no output schema, so the description should clarify what a caller can expect. It covers the core function and side effects but omits details about return values, progress indicators, and per-parameter behavior for folder/subfolder/timeout. The reference to the task list helps but is not a full substitute.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only partially does. It hints at task types but does not explain the role of folder, subfolder, timeout, or building_path. Examples like 'rebar schedules' give some semantic meaning to 'tasks' but leave most parameters unexplained.

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 clearly states the tool runs TQS Manager processing tasks (TQSExec) with concrete examples (global processing, drawing generation, rebar schedules), giving a verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tqs_building_read or tqs_status which are non-processing operations.

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 description provides clear context: it is for executing processing tasks against a building and notes that the task list is in the tqsexec reference. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity versus tqs_run_script or other write tools.

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