apply_process

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is established. The description adds meaningful context: global application when id is omitted, requirement for exact PJSR parameter names, enum string handling, and the 'Checkpoints first' instruction. It does not describe failure modes or return behavior, but enough behavioral context is added beyond annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: the fallback role, the invocation mechanics, and the checkpoint warning. It is front-loaded with the most important framing and contains no filler.

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 generic, schema-light tool, the description covers invocation scope, parameter naming conventions, enum handling, and safety behavior. It also references process_params for further detail. The only notable omission is the semantics of ignore_unknown, but the overall guidance is sufficient for an agent to attempt correct 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 coverage is only 20%, and the description compensates by explaining 'process' (applied by name), 'id' (omitting it means global), and 'params' (flat object, exact PJSR names, enums as strings). The reference to process_params is helpful. However, 'ignore_unknown' is left unexplained, which prevents a higher score.

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 ('apply'), resource ('any installed PixInsight process by name'), and scope ('to a view or globally when id omitted'). The 'Generic fallback' label distinguishes it from the many dedicated process tools in the sibling list, so an agent immediately knows this is the catch-all path.

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 phrase 'Generic fallback' clearly implies it should be used when no dedicated tool applies, and it points to process_params for exact parameter names. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use conditions, but the fallback framing provides adequate context.

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