run_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states execution and chaining, but does not mention side effects (e.g., sending campaigns may incur costs or contact customers), error handling (despite on_failure/on_success fields in schema), or any permissions or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a workflow that likely performs consequential 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Execute a multi-step marketing workflow') followed by a concrete example. No fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for what it does.

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 (multi-step, nested steps, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error behavior, how to define step transitions, or what constitutes a valid action. An agent would struggle to correctly construct the steps parameter without additional guidance.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an example chain but does not explain the meaning of workflow_id, steps, first_step, or name, nor how to structure the steps array (e.g., what actions are valid, how to connect on_success/on_failure). The example hints at the content but leaves parameter semantics under-specified.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a multi-step marketing workflow.' It also names the exact chain of operations (sync_contact → create_segment → send_campaign), which distinguishes it from individual sibling tools like hub_sync_contact or hub_send_campaign. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose.

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 implies usage: it's for chaining multiple operations rather than calling them individually, as shown by the arrow example. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if you only need a single operation) or name alternative tools as a contrast. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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