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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds genuinely new traits not in the annotations: that the run is 'queued' (i.e., asynchronous submission rather than a blocking call) and bounded by a 'hard credit ceiling', which tells the agent cost is capped but a charge can still occur.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and the key scoping constraints (exact version, credit ceiling, isolated mode) all appear before any qualifiers. Nothing wasteful.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described, and all parameters are schema-documented. Still, for a 9-parameter destructive, open-world submission tool, the description omits what happens after queuing (polling/retrieval via workflow_runs) and whether the credit cap rejects or truncates the run, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 100%, so all nine parameters (including the mode enum, immutable version, mutually exclusive input/input_artifact_id, and credit cap) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or constraint detail beyond what is structured, so the 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?

States a specific verb (queue a run) and resource (one exact saved Workflow version), with the scope qualifiers 'isolated pilot or production' and 'hard credit ceiling'. It clearly distinguishes a run-submission tool from siblings like workflow_validate, workflow_runs, and workflow_definition, though it doesn't name them.

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 'pilot or production' phrasing implies when to pick each mode, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives (e.g., use workflow_validate first, or workflow_runs to inspect results), leaving the agent to infer the placement in the workflow lifecycle.

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