Run Workflow From Annotation

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that agents are created and opened in the grid, but does not mention side effects like canvas modification or whether the operation is reversible. Basic transparency but lacks depth.

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 efficiently conveys the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly restructured for clarity (e.g., separating parameter options).

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, the agents sub-structure, or what 'creating agents' entails. The agent needs more context to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so description must compensate. It only explains three parameters (annotation, selected node, prompt) out of ten, ignoring mode, workflowPresetId, agents array, and boolean flags. This leaves most parameters unclarified.

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 the tool's purpose: using an annotation, selected node, or direct prompt as an entrypoint for a workflow, creating agents, opening them in the grid, and sending initial prompts. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_agent_pair or open_nodes_in_grid by combining these actions.

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 (starting a workflow from an annotation), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no guidance on when not to use it or mention of sibling tools like create_agent_pair for manual setup.

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