Adopt the recorded row

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it journals the run as done so replays skip it, a failed check leaves it in review, and it returns 'the same bounded result as run_start.' The destructiveHint=true annotation is consistent with the journaling state mutation described, and the description usefully clarifies that it does not resubmit the row.

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?

Front-loads the trigger condition, then the behavior, then the parameter call-to-action. Three sentences with little waste, though the first sentence is dense and could be split for readability.

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 state-mutating tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the key behaviors and the return shape, but omits the meaning of the 'workflow' and 'params' inputs. Adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 carries the full burden, and it only clarifies two of four parameters ('the exact recorded row data and an evidence note'). The 'workflow' and optional 'params' parameters go unexplained in both schema and description, leaving a real gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('adopt the recorded row') and a precise scope: 'runs only the steps after the commit to verify it, without submitting again.' It also orients against siblings by naming workflow_save as the predecessor and run_start as the result-shape reference, so the agent can place it in the run_* family.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call once after workflow_save when the recording really submitted a row,' which is a clear when-to-use condition. The 'without submitting again' clause implies the when-not case (don't use it if the row wasn't actually submitted), but that exclusion is left to inference rather than stated.

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