run_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a tier gate ('scout_catalog_pioneer_runs'), the backing API and authority-check endpoints, and the important precondition that execution needs per-skill readiness plus user confirmation. 'Guarded' itself is never defined, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 two-sentence body is tight and wastes nothing, but the description leads with bracketed capability/API/authority metadata rather than the purpose statement, burying the most decision-relevant sentence second. Efficiency is good; front-loading is not.

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?

For a non-idempotent mutating tool with four required parameters, zero schema coverage, and no output schema, an agent still cannot tell what the created record looks like, whether a run ID is returned, or how to move from this record to actual execution. The tier-gate and confirmation note help, but the operational picture is incomplete.

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?

With 5 parameters and schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden — but it only obliquely references 'session' and 'workflow'. Nothing explains agentAddress format, sessionToken's role, or what installedSkills is used for (e.g., whether listing skills here is what unlocks execution). This is a real gap for a mutation tool.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Create a guarded workflow run record for a session.' It also usefully clarifies that run_workflow does not itself execute — execution requires owning skills and confirmation — which resolves the ambiguity in the tool name. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings like plan_workflow or get_workflow_status.

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 line 'Execution still requires each owning skill and explicit user confirmation' implies this is a preparatory/record-creation step rather than an execution step, which is useful routing context. But there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus plan_workflow, list_workflows, or get_workflow_status, and no stated prerequisites beyond the tier gate.

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