StartWorkflowInstances

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('启动' meaning start) but doesn't explain what starting entails—whether it's a mutation, requires permissions, has side effects, or what happens if instances are already running. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely modifies state.

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, efficient phrase ('启动工作流实例') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It's appropriately sized for conveying the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of a likely state-modifying tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like effects, permissions, or response format, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool safely and effectively.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('Ids' as workflow instance ID list and 'Comment' as remark information). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 '启动工作流实例' (Start workflow instances) clearly states the verb and resource, but it's somewhat vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'CreateWorkflowInstances' or 'ExecuteAdhocWorkflowInstance'. It specifies the action but lacks detail about what 'starting' entails versus creating or executing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'CreateWorkflowInstances' or 'ExecuteAdhocWorkflowInstance'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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