execute_workflow

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 simply says 'execute a workflow' but does not disclose whether the execution is synchronous or asynchronous, whether it queues jobs, what side effects occur, or whether cancellation/queuing interactions are possible. The wait parameter hints at polling behavior, but the description itself adds no context beyond the schema.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, clearly conveying the core purpose. It is under-specified, but for the dimension of conciseness, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 is an execution action with a rich ecosystem of related tools (queues, jobs, results, etc.). The description provides minimal context: no mention of execution lifecycle, asynchronous behavior, output handling, or relationship to builder tools. The presence of an output schema mitigates some return-value ambiguity, but overall the description is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%: both 'workflow_id' and 'wait' have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning about the parameters, so the schema carries the burden. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('workflow'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_workflow, validate_workflow, and get_workflow by emphasizing 'built with builder tools'. This clearly identifies the tool's primary action and scope.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing to create/validate a workflow first, nor any explicit reference to related tools like get_job_status or wait_for_jobs for asynchronous execution scenarios.

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