ds_run_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key side effect: the tool brings the workflow online first, and explains the partial-run semantics of start_task_names. However, it does not mention return values, prerequisites (e.g., whether the workflow must be offline), or error behavior, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a clean args list. Every sentence earns its place, and the example for start_task_names is valuable without waste.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, the description covers the core action and all parameters. However, it omits key contextual information such as what the tool returns (e.g., a run ID), whether it is synchronous, and any prerequisites like workflow offline state. It is adequate for a simple trigger but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful detail for start_task_names (example, downstream inclusion) but project_name and workflow_code are only briefly restated as 'Project name' and 'Process-definition code', adding little beyond the schema titles. The description partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions but not fully.

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 tool's purpose: 'Manually trigger a workflow run (brings it online first)' — a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like ds_create_workflow or ds_list_workflows by focusing on triggering an existing workflow run and noting the online-first side effect.

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 context on how to use the tool, especially the optional start_task_names parameter with an example and explanation that it includes downstream tasks. It implies 'use this to manually run a workflow, leaving empty for full run.' It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but gives sufficient guidance for the intended use case.

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