Run saved workflow template

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating the tool 'Requires confirmation' and that it injects variable values, which are not present in annotations. No contradiction exists between description and annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then adds usage sequencing and a safety note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, usage sequence, and confirmation. It could mention how to obtain the slug (implied via the list tool) or give more detail on variable injection, but overall it is sufficient for a 3-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, and it does: 'slug name' clarifies workflow_name, 'injecting variable values' clarifies the variables parameter, and 'Requires confirmation' implies the confirmed boolean. It could be more explicit about the variables object structure, but it adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('saved Aidoo workflow template') and explains the mechanism ('by its slug name, injecting variable values'). It references a related sibling (aidoo_workflow_list) but does not explicitly contrast itself with aidoo_execute, so it is clear but not fully differentiated from all 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 provides explicit sequencing guidance: 'Use after finding a match from aidoo_workflow_list.' It also notes the prerequisite that confirmation is required. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for different scenarios, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.

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