hydra_run_workflow

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds meaning by explaining that the contained jobs write real data to destinations and that the output is a step-by-step trace. It aligns with the annotations and adds context, though it omits details like reversibility or prerequisites.

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?

Two sentences with the core action front-loaded and a necessary safety caveat immediately after. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the schema.

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 single-parameter destructive run tool with an output schema, the description covers the main behavior and side-effect warning. However, it lacks guidance on how to obtain or validate workflow_path, and whether validation should happen before running, which would round out the context for safe invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the workflow_path parameter at all. The title 'Workflow Path' gives minimal meaning, but the agent gets no guidance on path format, origin, or how to obtain a valid value.

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 the verb and resource: 'Run a workflow' and says it returns a step-by-step trace. It differentiates from write/validate siblings by emphasizing actual execution, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from hydra_run_job.

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?

It explicitly says 'Only call this tool if the user asked for the run,' which is a clear when-not condition. It also warns that jobs write real data. It does not name an alternative such as validate or preview, but the exclusion is strong enough for an agent.

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