run_workflow

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds the active company scope and published-workflow constraint, but it does not disclose whether execution is synchronous or asynchronous, what side effects occur, what permissions are needed, or what the response represents.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. The key qualifiers—published, list_workflows, and active company scope—are packed in and front-loaded.

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 3-parameter execution tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, this is too sparse. An agent cannot tell how to phrase 'objective', whether 'inputs' is a JSON string, or whether the tool blocks until completion or returns a run reference. The presence of an output schema helps with return shape but not with calling semantics.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It only implicitly suggests that workflow_ref comes from list_workflows; it gives no meaning for the required 'objective' parameter or what format 'inputs' should take beyond a default '{}'.

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 ('Run') and resource ('one published workflow from list_workflows'), and adds the active company scope. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings like trigger_workflow or dynamic_workflow_start.

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 phrase 'from list_workflows' provides a clear prerequisite and source for selecting the workflow, and 'published' narrows which workflows qualify. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives among the many workflow-related sibling tools.

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