bw_start_process_chain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses asynchronous background execution under the chain's technical user, that scheduling is unchanged, the active-chain prerequisite, and what the call returns (log ID, status, step messages). It omits auth/permission requirements and failure modes, leaving some gaps.

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?

Front-loads the core action and packs useful details (async, prerequisite, return values, follow-up) with little waste. The opening sentence is long and clause-heavy, but each element earns its place.

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 2-parameter mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential prerequisites, execution semantics, return values, and follow-up path. It is nearly self-sufficient, with only permission/error behavior left unstated.

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 both parameters, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds behavioral meaning beyond the schema by explaining that wait_seconds polls every 5 seconds and otherwise the tool answers immediately after the start, clarifying the parameter's effect.

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 (start a process chain) with precise scope: one immediate, asynchronous run. It distinguishes itself from siblings like bw_create_process_chain and bw_activate_process_chain by describing the run as happening now, independent of the chain's start condition, without altering its schedule.

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?

Gives clear context (equivalent to the Cockpit's Execute) and an explicit prerequisite (the chain must be active), and routes the agent to bw_get_process_chain_run_detail for follow-up. It does not explicitly contrast when NOT to use this versus a scheduled/triggered run, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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