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

Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds real context beyond them: the run is limited to the published workflow's declared side effects within configured gates and policy, an approval step is required, and retrying with the same idempotency key returns the same run rather than starting a new one. That is behavior an agent cannot infer from the annotation block alone.

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, each carrying a distinct load: purpose, side-effect scope, confirmation workflow, retry semantics. The purpose is front-loaded and nothing is redundant with the schema beyond a deliberate idempotency reminder.

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, 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety-relevant facts an agent needs: prerequisite read call, user confirmation, bounded side effects, and retry behavior. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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; the description still adds value by saying inputs must match the parameters returned by get_workflow and by restating the idempotency guarantee. It does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so it does not reach 5.

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 ("Start a published workflow") and scopes it further by noting inputs are validated against parameters returned by get_workflow. An agent can distinguish this from get_workflow, list_workflow_runs, start_task, and cancel_workflow_run without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit precondition chain: call get_workflow first, show the user inputs/side effects/approval gates, and call only after explicit confirmation in the current conversation. This is a concrete when-to-call and when-not-to-call rule rather than implied usage.

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