Run a workflow

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does deliver one high-value disclosure: finalOutput is model-generated UNTRUSTED content, which warns the agent against prompt-injection from the result. It also states a structured result is returned. It omits cost/latency behavior and that execution is a side-effecting, potentially long-running operation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the output, and the trust warning placed last where it is still prominent. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source for return-value shape, and 'Returns a structured result' plus the finalOutput caveat is thin for a tool whose result the agent must interpret. Given four parameters including a nested overrides object, the definition is adequate but leaves the response contract underspecified.

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 every parameter including the nested overrides object and its clamp-with-warning behavior is already documented. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Execute a configured Bayze waterfall workflow') and even illustrates the pipeline shape ('draft -> structured review -> revise'). It does not name the sibling list_workflows, which is the lookup tool an agent needs first, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the execution step after picking a workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to list_workflows or get_run_summary. No prerequisites (e.g. a valid workflow id must already exist) are stated in the description itself.

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