Execute a Mistral workflow

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

Annotations provide basic hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds significant behavioral context: immediate return with execution_id and RUNNING status for async mode, blocking for sync mode, and timeoutSeconds cap. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with sections for modes and parameters. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with key functionality. Could be slightly more concise, but no unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, output schema exists), the description adequately covers execution modes, polling, timeout, and deployment targeting. It explains the return behavior for both modes, though it could mention error handling or prerequisites.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema: workflowIdentifier is visible in mistral://workflows, input is free-form JSON matching workflow input schema, waitForResult modes explained, timeoutSeconds default and cap, deploymentName for targeting a slot.

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 it starts a Mistral Workflow execution, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like workflow_status and workflow_interact by describing execution modes and polling.

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 explains when to use waitForResult=false (async) vs true (blocking), mentions polling with workflow_status for async mode, and deploymentName for multiple slots. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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