processInstance_startById

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable context about return values ('instance ID, state, and definition info'), but fails to disclose mutation characteristics, side effects, or failure modes for this state-changing operation.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action definition, usage guidance, and return value disclosure. No redundancy or wasted words.

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 complex process instantiation tool with no annotations and empty input schema, the description adequately covers basic purpose and return values. However, it lacks critical operational context regarding side effects, permissions, or error conditions that would be expected for a mutation operation.

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 contains 0 parameters, which per evaluation rules establishes a baseline score of 4. The description implies the existence of a process definition ID parameter, but this is not reflected in the provided empty schema properties.

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 specific action 'Start a new process instance' and the mechanism 'by process definition ID'. It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'processInstance_start' by specifying the particular use case involving definition IDs.

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 explicit guidance 'Use when a specific definition version is required', which clearly signals when this tool is appropriate over alternatives. However, it stops short of explicitly naming 'processInstance_start' as the alternative for non-specific versions.

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