tealfabric_create_process

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only discloses the return value (process_id). It says nothing about side effects of creation, what defaults get applied to unspecified fields, whether name must be unique, or whether the created process is immediately executable — all critical for a 9-param creation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action stated first and the return value second. Nothing drags or buries the lede.

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 mutation tool with 9 parameters, a nested free-form configuration object, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too thin. The only compensating element is the mention of process_id, leaving defaults, validation rules, and the shape of the configuration object undocumented.

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?

Schema description coverage is 11% across 9 parameters, and the description adds no meaning for any of them — not for type, category, priority, is_template, configuration, or executable_by_ai_agents, all of which are opaque bare types. The one sentence of description is entirely about the return value, so the large coverage gap goes uncompensated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a new Tealfabric process") and parenthetically disambiguates the resource as a process flow. It is clearly distinct from siblings like update_process, delete_process, or execute_process by virtue of the create verb, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 versus tealfabric_update_process or tealfabric_create_process_step, no mention of prerequisites such as required permissions or an existing workspace, and no exclusions. An agent must infer everything from the tool name alone.

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