run_workflow

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

The readOnlyHint=false annotation already signals a mutating operation, and the description adds no further behavioral context such as asynchronicity, return format, or prerequisites (e.g., workflow must be active). There is no contradiction, but the description is thin on behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence that is succinct, front-loaded, and free of filler. It conveys the essential action and payload option without unnecessary words.

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?

The tool has no output schema and minimal annotations, yet the description does not hint at what the execution returns (e.g., an execution ID) or whether the run is asynchronous. This leaves the agent uncertain about the outcome and any prerequisites, making the description incomplete for effective usage.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters (id and data) with clear descriptions, so the description's mention of 'optional payload data' adds no new semantic detail. Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 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 uses the verb 'trigger' and clearly identifies the resource as 'workflow execution', also mentioning optional payload data. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_workflow and retry_execution, though it doesn't explicitly state that it operates on an existing workflow by ID.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as retry_execution or stop_execution. It simply states the action without contextual cues or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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