advance_workflow_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It implies a state change ('Advance') but does not detail side effects, error conditions, or preconditions (e.g., whether the workflow must be running). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and condition. It is efficient and front-loaded, though additional structure (e.g., listing side effects) would not hurt conciseness.

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 low complexity (1 required parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and when, but lacks information on return values, error handling, or relationship to sibling tools like 'backtrack' or 'start_workflow_execution'.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with a description for 'runId' ('Workflow run ID'). The tool description adds no additional meaning or context to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the verb 'Advance' and specifies the resource 'workflow run', with a condition 'after task completion'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'start_workflow_execution' or 'delete_workflow_run', but could be more precise about what advancing entails (e.g., moving to next step or resuming).

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 phrase 'after task completion' provides some context on when to use the tool, but it does not compare to alternatives, specify prerequisites, or list exclusions. No guidance on when not to use it is given.

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