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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: it doesn't mention credit consumption (max_credits exists), what happens on idempotency-key reuse, or that a changed revision produces a conflict.

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 short sentence with no filler and the key qualifiers front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-sized for a 7-parameter mutation tool.

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 mutation tool with a nested input object, a required idempotency key, an optional revision guard, and a credit ceiling, and with no output schema, the description omits what a run start produces, how retries behave, and how revision conflicts surface. Substantial gaps remain.

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 seven parameters are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description restates 'inputs' and 'idempotency key' without adding format, constraint, or conflict semantics beyond what the schema says.

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 workflow run') with a scope qualifier ('explicit inputs and an idempotency key'). It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like continue_workflow_run or retry_workflow_run, which an agent must infer from elsewhere.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus continue_workflow_run, retry_workflow_run, submit_job, or submit_batch, all of which live in the same sibling set. The agent gets no routing guidance beyond the name.

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