tealfabric_create_process_step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool creates a resource and returns the new step_id, which is core behavioral information. But it does not mention side effects, validation, defaultes like step_type, or whether the process_id must refer to an existing process. Some helpful behavioral context is missing, but the core mutation and outcome are clear.

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, front-loaded sentences contain no filler. The first states the action and resource; the second provides return information not available in the structured data. Both sentences earn their 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?

This is a 15-parameter tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers only the high-level purpose and return value, leaving substantial context unexplained—how steps are ordered/positioned, what step_type defaults to, whether process_id is validated, and how schema/config fields are used. That is too incomplete for correct invocation.

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 only 20%, and the description does not compensate for the 15 undocumented parameters. It explains nothing about sequence, step_type, position_x/y, configuration, input/output schemas, or the alias relationship between name and step_name. For an agent to select correct parameter values, this is a critical gap.

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 states a specific action ('Create') and resource ('new process step') and even names the return value ('Returns the new step_id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations that update, get, list, or execute process steps. The purpose is unmistakable even without opening the schema.

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?

It implies use when a new process step needs to be added to a process flow, which is clear context. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when to prefer siblings like tealfabric_update_process_step or tealfabric_list_process_steps. The usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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