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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not obliged to re-state the safety profile. It adds genuinely new behavior: a live run charges credits for the tools it calls, and it returns the run id plus initial status. It does not explain what dry_run or smoke_test actually do.

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, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the cost caveat placed last where it matters most.

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?

The description covers the queued-run model, the accepted workflow identifiers, and the return shape, and there is no output schema to explain. However, for a destructive, credit-charging, open-world mutation with an unexplained mode enum, the omission of dry_run/smoke_test semantics and of what 'input' does leaves a real gap before an agent can call it correctly.

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 only 25%, so the description must carry the load, and it mostly does not. It clarifies that 'workflow' accepts a name or id, but the mode enum (live vs dry_run vs smoke_test) — the single most consequential parameter choice — and the nested 'input' object are left entirely unexplained; the credit note only obliquely implies what live means.

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 ('Queue a run of a saved workflow in this workspace, by name or id'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling hyreflow_workflow_runs list tool. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully self-differentiating.

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 reader can infer this is the tool for kicking off an existing workflow rather than listing or defining one, and the credit caveat hints at cost trade-offs. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., preferring dry_run first, or using hyreflow_workflow_runs to poll).

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