BearQ: Run Workflow

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

The description discloses genuinely useful behavior beyond the schema: the in-flight dedup path and the started: false marker on the returned run. However, it plainly describes a state-changing operation ("starts a run"), which conflicts with the supplied readOnlyHint: true, leaving an agent unsure whether this call mutates the system — the exact safety question the annotation is meant to answer.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its return shape, then the edge case, then the next step. The trailing toolset/parameter block duplicates structured fields and is the only avoidable content.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states what comes back (id, status, timestamps) and covers the main non-obvious branch (existing in-flight run). Permission requirements and failure modes for an unknown workflow name are not addressed.

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%, and the description's parameter note is a verbatim restatement of the schema text (name case-insensitive or numeric ID), adding no new meaning. With one parameter fully documented in the schema, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Starts a run of a BearQ workflow now") and immediately describes the return value. It also names the related sibling bearq_get_workflow_run, so an agent can place it relative to the polling tool without opening either schema.

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?

It clearly states the calling context (start now, then poll with bearq_get_workflow_run) and describes the deduplication rule so the agent knows what happens on repeat calls. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from other run-shaped siblings such as bearq_run_regression_tests or bearq_run_test_cases.

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