start_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions that the engine fans prospects through steps and that outcome events advance/terminate runs reactively. Still, it omits details about side effects, cost implications, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 highly concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately follow with parameter guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core idea and parameter choice but lacks information about return values, error scenarios, or prerequisites (e.g., valid offer_id/audience_upload_id). This leaves the agent somewhat underinformed.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of 'template_key' and 'custom_steps', and by summarizing the multi-channel fan-out. This surpasses the schema's individual parameter 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 explicitly states the tool kicks off a multi-channel workflow for an audience, naming the channels and highlighting the choice between template and custom steps. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling dispatch_* tools that handle single channels.

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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use templateKey vs customSteps. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for single-channel campaigns) nor outline prerequisites, which would further aid selection.

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