vro_run_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and non-idempotency profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing on top — no mention of what state a run creates, whether it executes synchronously or asynchronously, or how to retrieve results afterwards, all of which matter for a non-idempotent start 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?

It is short and front-loaded, so nothing is bloated, but the first two lines are pure duplication of the title and the third is a raw HTTP verb/path. Every sentence is redundant rather than earning 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?

For a non-idempotent start operation taking a complex nested request body and returning no output schema, the description is far too thin — an agent cannot tell what fields to supply, whether the run executes immediately, or what identifier comes back to poll with vro_workflow_run_get_by_run_id. The only thing conveyed is the endpoint path.

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 reported at 100% for the single top-level body parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies even though the description contributes nothing. The caveat is that the nested body fields (projectId, actionName, workflowId, executionId, parameters, constraint) carry almost no per-field descriptions, so which identifier is actually required for a run is genuinely ambiguous and the description does not resolve it.

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 says only 'Start Workflow Run' and then repeats 'Starts Workflow Run' — it restates the tool name rather than specifying what starting a run means in VMware Aria Automation Orchestrator terms. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like vro_workflow_run_get_all or vro_workflow_run_get_by_run_id beyond the obvious, and the POST path adds no semantic value.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of what to do before starting a run (e.g., looking up a workflowId via vro_workflow_get_all), and no exclusion relative to the get-a-run siblings. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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