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

Annotations are neutral (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false etc.), and the description adds the key behavioral detail that this is an asynchronous operation requiring polling via spaces_run_status. However, it does not disclose other side effects, return values, or potential costs, which would be helpful given the lack of explicit annotation hints. The description carries part of the burden but could be richer.

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?

The description is extremely concise—one sentence plus a compact list of modes and a poll reference. Every word adds value, and the key action is front-loaded. No redundant phrasing or verbose explanations.

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 simple asynchronous run tool, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, the modes, and how to track completion. It doesn't mention return values or error handling, but since there's no output schema and the status tool is referenced, the absence is acceptable. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explicitly clarifies that startNodeId is the starting point ('from startNodeId') and explains the mode enum values, including the default. It does not describe spaceId, but that parameter is self-explanatory from its name. This is a solid compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool runs a Space workflow from a specific starting node, using a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('Space workflow'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like spaces_run_status (polling) and flows_run (different resource type) by naming the exact function and mentioning the polling companion.

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 provides context on usage modes, including a default mode ('connected default'), and explicitly advises polling with spaces_run_status after running. While it doesn't state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives like flows_run, the polling hint and mode explanation give clear usage direction for a typical asynchronous workflow.

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