create_process_with_error_handling

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the resulting process includes a boundary error event and dedicated handler, but it does not describe side effects, output, validation behavior, failure modes, or required permissions.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is easy to scan, though its brevity comes at the cost of missing important usage and parameter details.

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 the absence of annotations, output schema, and meaningful parameter schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It only identifies the process elements and leaves open what to pass, what will happen, and what will be returned.

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?

The single parameter 'description' has an empty schema with 0% coverage, and the tool description provides no information about what this parameter should contain. Since schema coverage is low, the description needed to compensate, but it does not mention the parameter at all.

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 names a specific resource (a process with a boundary error event and dedicated handler), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_process_with_boundary_events. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase ('Proceso con...') rather than an explicit verb, so the agent must infer the 'create' action from the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling process-creation tools. The description never mentions alternatives, exclusions, or a preferred context, so the agent is left to guess based on the name alone.

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