Start workflow for a contact

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds material context annotations cannot express: this is a real run against a real contact, mail will actually be sent, and it is irreversible once mail goes out. It also narrows the semantics of cancellation to steps that have not yet run.

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?

Bold labels front-load purpose, exclusions, return value, usage condition, and the irreversibility caveat. Five short blocks, no filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what it does, what it is not) comes first.

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 destructive, non-idempotent, open-world tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, the return value (created execution with its id), and recovery. The only real gap is the unexplained `context` parameter, which matters given nested-object input.

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 only 33% — only `id` is documented in the schema; `contactId` (required) and the free-form `context` object are undocumented. The description implies "one contact" and a workflow but never explains what `context` accepts or what it does, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a nested-object parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — putting one contact into a workflow immediately, bypassing the normal trigger. This distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling read tools (plunk_list_workflow_executions, plunk_get_workflow_execution) and the workflow-authoring tools, none of which run a contact through a live automation.

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?

Explicitly gives both when-to-use ("a contact should go through an automation that its trigger would not catch") and when-not-to-use ("not for testing what a workflow does"), plus the recovery path via plunk_cancel_workflow_execution. Nothing is left to inference.

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