execute_workflow

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that workflows are 'server-side scripts that contain business logic' and that execution will 'trigger actions,' implying side effects, but it does not disclose whether changes are reversible, what permissions are required, or any potential consequences of running arbitrary scripts. This is minimal transparency for a potentially high-impact execution tool.

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 compact—three sentences that immediately state the core action and use case. It front-loads the essential detail and provides useful context about server-side scripts without any fluff or redundancy. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose, making it a model of concise, structured documentation.

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 no annotations, but the description does not mention what the tool returns, whether errors are possible, or any safety caveats about executing arbitrary server-side scripts. It does guide the caller to inspect workflows first, which is helpful, but the lack of behavioral consequences and result information leaves the context incomplete for a tool with this level of power.

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%, meaning all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds a general note that arguments are 'key-value pairs matching the workflow's parameter names,' but this largely mirrors the schema's own description for args. There is no additional depth about workflowName or method beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 opens with 'Execute a named workflow method with arguments,' clearly identifying the verb (execute), resource (workflow method), and scope (named). It then distinguishes from sibling tools by instructing to use list_workflows and get_workflow for discovery and inspection, making it unambiguous that this tool performs the actual execution. This fully clarifies its unique role among the siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'to trigger actions, run calculations, or invoke custom processes.' It also provides clear prerequisites: 'Before executing, use list_workflows to discover available workflows and get_workflow to read their source code.' This is strong guidance, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for read-only operations such as fetch_query.

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