start_process

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the return value (started process ID and initial status) and warns about the template_id pitfall, which helps. Yet it omits details about side effects, whether the operation is synchronous, or any prerequisites beyond the template, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 exceptionally concise, using four short sentences that each deliver unique value: action, template_id guidance, payload guidance, and return format. There is zero fluff, and the most important instruction is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter start action with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what to pass, how to obtain the correct template_id, and what to expect in return. It is slightly lacking in error conditions or idempotency notes, but the given information is sufficient for most usage scenarios.

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 schema provides only names and types with no descriptions, so the description adds critical meaning. It explains that template_id must be the 'id' field from list_pipelines (not 'pipeline_id'), and that payload must match the template's header_schema. This transforms ambiguous parameters into actionable guidance.

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 opens with 'Start a new workflow process under a template,' which uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing this from sibling listing and detail tools. The scope is precise and directly tied to template usage, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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 that this tool is used to start a process under a template, and it explicitly instructs using the 'id' field from list_pipelines rather than 'pipeline_id'. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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