start_process

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description goes beyond by explaining that each call creates a new execution, the condition for parallel execution prevention, and the typed error response. This adds significant behavioral context.

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 purpose in the first sentence and behavioral details in the second. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

Given two required parameters, an output schema (exists), and annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, non-idempotence, and error handling. It is fully self-contained for correct tool 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 descriptions are minimal ('a string that will be trimmed'), but the description adds meaning by explaining that parameters accept ID or exact name/title and that ambiguous inputs fail with candidate IDs. This compensates well for the schema's lack of detail.

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 'Start a new active Huly Process workflow execution on a card/document,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_process, list_processes, and list_process_executions by focusing on starting a new execution.

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 guidance on parameter usage: accepts process ID or exact process name, card ID or exact title, with failure on ambiguity. It explains non-idempotent behavior and the error case for parallel executions. While it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, the context is sufficient.

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