create_workflow_run

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'in draft status' but does not explain what 'draft' entails (e.g., not executed, requires further action), nor any side effects, permissions needed, or error conditions.

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 extremely short (one sentence) but omits critical information. Conciseness is not effective when it sacrifices clarity and completeness for the agent.

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 4 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. It fails to specify what the parameters mean, what a 'draft' workflow run implies, or how to use the result.

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 the description must add meaning to the parameters. It does not explain any of the four parameters (goal, session_id, user_id, metadata), leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill them correctly, especially the 'goal' which is required.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'new workflow run', and specifies the result is in 'draft status', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_workflow_run' that retrieve existing 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical workflow sequences, or when to avoid using it (e.g., if a run already exists).

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