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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower, and the description usefully goes beyond them: it explains that a repeated idempotency_key replays the existing run (replay:true) rather than starting another, and that max_charge_credits is a hard ceiling for the whole run. It does not cover auth/permission requirements or what state changes occur, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then mode semantics, then the credit cap, then idempotency and follow-up routing. No filler or redundancy.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description supplies the operational context an agent needs: mode choice, cost ceiling, exactly-once retry behavior, and where to go next for run lifecycle operations. Return-value explanation is unnecessary given the output schema, and nothing material is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it defines pilot vs run semantics, frames max_charge_credits as a hard run-wide ceiling, and clarifies the replay behavior of idempotency_key. It adds value on the semantically tricky parameters rather than merely restating them.

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 one exact saved Workflow version'), and the emphasis on 'exact saved version' distinguishes it from siblings like workflow_validate or workflow_definition. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Explicitly explains the pilot-vs-run selection condition and routes follow-up work (progress, results, cancel, resume) to workflow_runs, which is a clear alternative. It stops short of an explicit when-not to use it (e.g., validating a definition first), so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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