start_workflow_execution

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states 'Start execution of a workflow' but omits important traits such as idempotency, side effects (e.g., creating a run record), required state, or whether multiple starts are allowed. This is minimal transparency.

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, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, making it merely acceptable rather than optimally informative.

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 role (starting a workflow execution) and the lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a run ID) and any required conditions (e.g., workflow must exist). It does neither, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 provides 100% description coverage for the sole parameter 'workflowId' with the description 'Workflow ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 identifies the action ('Start execution') and the resource ('workflow'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'advance_workflow_run' which implies continuing an existing execution. However, it does not explicitly state that this creates a new run or initiates the workflow, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'advance_workflow_run' or 'delete_workflow_run'. The description does not include prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions.

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