run_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that per-step results are returned, but says nothing about side effects, permissions, idempotency, partial failures, or what happens if a step fails—important gaps for an execution 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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, the input shape, and the return shape efficiently.

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 an execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should explain prerequisites, whether execution is synchronous or asynchronous, failure semantics, and what 'per-step results' contains, especially given the nested step input.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including the nested step map. The description does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (Execute) and resource (a workflow), and adds that it accepts structured step inputs and returns per-step results. This is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool's core function, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from nearby siblings like render_workflow or list_workflow_runs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as render_workflow, list_workflow_runs, or get_run. The description implies execution but provides no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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