update_process_management

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '更新します' (updates) implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or what happens when the operation fails. For a complex mutation tool with 5 parameters, this is inadequate behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient Japanese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information about what the tool does.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'process management settings' entail, what the expected behavior is, or what constitutes success/failure. Without annotations and with no output schema, the description should provide more context about the operation's scope and outcomes.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 action ('更新します' - updates) and the target ('kintoneアプリのプロセス管理設定' - kintone app process management settings), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_app_settings' or 'update_record_status', which also perform updates on different aspects of kintone apps.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple update-related sibling tools (update_app_settings, update_record_status, update_app_actions, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate that this tool specifically handles process management settings rather than other app configurations.

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