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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true, but the description adds crucial context: the run can perform only the published workflow's declared side effects within configured gates and policy, and retrying with the same idempotency key returns the same run. It also surfaces the required user-confirmation gate before any destructive action.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the confirmation gate, then the idempotency behavior. Every sentence earns its place for what is a destructive, open-world operation.

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 destructive, open-world tool with nested inputs and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: validation source, side-effect limits, the required user-confirmation gate, and idempotent retry semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely 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 value by explaining that inputs are validated against parameters returned by get_workflow and that native issue workflows require a confirmed repository_id. It stops short of adding syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Start a published workflow') and explicitly ties input validation to the sibling tool get_workflow. An agent can distinguish this from start_task or get_workflow 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 gives an explicit precondition: show the user the workflow's inputs, declared side effects, and approval gates from get_workflow, and call only after explicit confirmation in the current conversation. This is a clear when-to-use rule, not just implied context.

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