processDefinition_suspendByKey

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It effectively discloses that suspension prevents new starts and reveals the bidirectional nature (suspend OR activate). It also warns about the cascading effect on running instances. Missing idempotency or permission requirements.

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 tightly constructed sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with core action (suspend/activate), followed by behavioral consequence (cannot be started), then optional modifier (includeProcessInstances). Every sentence 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?

Adequate for a state-modification tool given no output schema or annotations: explains the state change and side effects. However, omits return value structure, error conditions (e.g., definition not found), and whether the operation is idempotent.

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?

Input schema shows 0 parameters, yet description references 'includeProcessInstances=true' without clarifying if this is a query param, body param, or how to specify the 'key' or the suspend/activate action state. Creates ambiguity about actual parameter interface despite adding some semantic 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 the tool suspends or activates process definitions by key, distinguishing it from instance-level suspension (sibling processInstance_setSuspension) and ID-based variants (implied by 'by key'). Specific verbs and resource type are explicit.

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?

Provides clear context that suspended definitions cannot be started, implying when suspension is appropriate. Mentions includeProcessInstances option to distinguish cascading behavior vs. definition-only suspension. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative comparison guidance.

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