dynamic_workflow_start

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

The annotations already carry idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'authoritative'. It does not explain what starting the workflow does to state, what resources are touched, or what happens after invocation. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the description also does not disclose anything beyond them.

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 one-sentence description is short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with 11 parameters and 7 required fields. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, similar to a stub but with slightly more content than a single word.

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 complexity of the schema, the lifecycle sibling tools, and the output schema, the description is far from complete. It never explains what makes the workflow 'authoritative' or 'scoped', how acceptance criteria are used, what the expected_revision/idempotency_key are for, or how this relates to subsequent dynamic_workflow_* calls.

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 0%, and the description mentions none of the 11 parameters; even the required company_ref, project_ref, objective, acceptance_criteria, and idempotency_key are unexplained. The free-text description must compensate for the empty schema descriptions but does not, leaving the agent to guess the meaning and relationships of required fields.

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 a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('scoped authoritative planner/builder/evaluator workflow'), so an agent can tell this initiates something rather than reads or mutates an existing record. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling lifecycle tools like dynamic_workflow_attach or dynamic_workflow_next_assignment, leaving some ambiguity about what 'start' initiates.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided: the description does not say when to choose this over dynamic_workflow_status, dynamic_workflow_attach, or the submit_* siblings. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or examples, so the agent must infer context solely from the tool name and sibling list.

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