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

The description discloses that it executes the workflow and may have side effects, aligning with the annotations. It also explains the behavior of triggering a run, capturing full output/traces, and returning a reference to resolve later.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core action, but it is slightly verbose with multiple clauses and contrasts. Still, it remains focused and readable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is returned (a workflow run reference) and how to use it (get_workflow_run), and it covers side effects. No missing context for a 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?

The schema covers the parameters, but the description adds meaning for the version parameter by explaining 'omit version for the latest draft'. It does not add much beyond the schema for slug/schedule_id, but the context is sufficient.

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's purpose: firing a schedule once immediately without publishing, to test drafts. It also distinguishes it from similar tools like preview_dynamic_endpoint and mentions it's for full capture unlike automatic fires.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool (testing drafts before going live, reproducing full output from sampled fires) and contrasts it with automatic firing. It also provides usage hints like omitting version for the latest draft.

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