common-invoke-workflow

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds nothing about behavior: it does not say the item's workflow state advances, that comments are recorded in history (only the schema hints at this), what permissions are needed, or whether the action is reversible. For a state-mutating tool this is a real gap.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste, which is good. But it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely efficient.

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 a 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only minimal annotations, the description should explain what the workflow action does to the item and any preconditions. It leaves the agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.

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 six parameters (id/path mutual exclusion, comments, database, language, commandName) are already documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning; baseline 3 applies.

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?

It names a verb ('Executes') and a resource ('workflow action for a Sitecore item'), so the general operation is clear. However, 'workflow action' is never defined (state transition? command invocation?), and the description offers no differentiation from siblings like common-new-item-workflow-event or common-get-item-workflow-event.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as the item being in a workflow state, and no indication of what happens on failure. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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