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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavior: asynchronous execution, the run_id return, and per-inner-pipeline credit cost. It omits what happens on invalid workflow_id, whether variables are validated, and what the response includes beyond the ID.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, mode, and return value, then the cost caveat and next steps. No filler, though the parenthetical packing of async and return value is slightly dense.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the lifecycle (async start, run_id, follow-up calls, credit cost) but leaves the 'variables' parameter entirely unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for a tool that accepts arbitrary input data.

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 0% and neither parameter is documented in the schema, yet the description never explains workflow_id's expected format or what the optional 'variables' object is for or how values are interpolated. Only the required id is loosely implied by 'Start a run'.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Start a run') plus the execution mode ('async') and the return value ('returns run_id'), which distinguishes it cleanly from workflow_run_get and workflow_run_wait.

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 names the two follow-up tools, workflow_run_wait and workflow_run_get, and implies this is the entry point for starting work. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it, e.g. relative to pipeline_run for a single-pipeline run, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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