enable_process

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that the change takes effect immediately with no restart and is scoped to 'esta réplica' — a non-obvious detail. It does not say whether the state persists across replicas/restarts or what error occurs for an unknown key.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, then the timing guarantee, then the consequence of omission. The '*' explanation partially duplicates the schema but is minor.

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 single-parameter, annotated, output-schema-less toggle, the description covers action, scope, immediacy and the negative case. Missing only failure behavior and multi-replica persistence implications.

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 coverage is 100% and the scope parameter already documents the key pattern and that '*' means all published definitions. The description repeats the '*' wildcard, adding no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Libera') on a specific resource (a process definition / key), and states the effect on agents in a conversation. An agent can infer this is the inverse of disable_process from the verb alone, though the sibling is never named.

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 supplies the motivating condition — 'Sem liberação, uma definição publicada não aparece para o agente' — which tells the agent exactly when this call is needed. It stops short of naming disable_process as the counterpart or stating that the definition must already be published.

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