start_workflow_run

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that it executes against live infrastructure, incurs cost, causes side effects, and runs only published workflows. Does not cover rate limits or authorization, but adds key behavioral context.

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 a single well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then explains behavior, follow-up actions, and optional parameter. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers purpose, behavior, follow-up, and parameter guidance. No output schema exists, so return format is omitted, but it directs to read_run for results. Missing mention of error conditions (e.g., unpublished workflow), but overall sufficient.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds context for triggerInput ('feed the workflow's trigger') and explains manualPhases ('phase gating'), adding some value beyond schema.

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 it starts a real run of a workflow for testing, distinguishes from sibling tools like list_workflow_runs and read_run, and specifies it runs the published version, not the draft.

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 advises using read_run, read_run_trace, and read_run_cost after starting, and warns about cost and side effects. It doesn't explicitly compare to validate_workflow for static checks, but provides strong context for when to use.

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