atlas_run_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses cost behavior (dry_run=False actually calls models), blocking semantics, pause-at-human return value, attachment byte-cloning with size/name constraints, that raw attachment paths are excluded from the response, and the status=starting return for wait=false. This is unusually rich 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 purpose and blocking behavior are front-loaded, and the segment structure (one cluster per parameter) makes a long description scannable. The density is largely justified by 9 parameters, though some clauses could be tightened without loss.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still adds useful response notes (no raw paths, paused status). Combined with the parameter and cost disclosures it is nearly complete; the unexplained required 'task' parameter is the one real hole for a tool of this complexity.

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 0% and there are 9 parameters, so the description must compensate; it explains workflow_id, yaml, persist_as, attachments, node_overrides, dry_run, wait and references expected_sha256 semantics. However, the single required parameter 'task' is never mentioned or defined anywhere, leaving its meaning and expected content unresolved.

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?

States the specific verb+resource (run a workflow) and immediately qualifies the scope: synchronous blocking to completion, workflow_id vs inline yaml, and dry_run vs real execution. An agent can distinguish it from atlas_validate_workflow, atlas_save_workflow and atlas_resume_run without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: workflow_id vs yaml (yaml wins if both), persist_as for long-term effect vs atlas_save_workflow, dry_run for rendering without cost, and wait=false for long jobs polled via atlas_get_run/atlas_list_runs. It also names the exclusion (wait=false is mutually exclusive with persist_as).

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