run_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that workflows 'chain multiple actions across different services,' hinting at side effects, but it fails to disclose potential impacts (e.g., mutating data, sending emails, charging customers), lack of reversibility, auth requirements, or failure modes. This is insufficient for a tool that can trigger cross-service actions.

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 two concise sentences with the main verb and resource front-loaded. Every clause adds useful context about what workflows are, with no fluff or 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?

This is an execution tool with cross-service side effects and no output schema. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., run ID, status), what happens if the workflow fails, or the need for prior workflow creation. It only provides high-level purpose, leaving major gaps for an agent to invoke it safely and correctly.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema gives (e.g., 'workflow' is already described as a name or ID). Therefore, the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute a saved workflow by name or ID.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the additional explanation of workflows as chained actions across services distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_workflow or list_workflows.

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 context: use this tool to execute a saved workflow. It implies that the workflow must already exist, distinguishing it from creation tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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