vro_run_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses automatic type conversion, the default blocking/wait behavior, and what is returned (state, outputs, error, logs). It omits auth/permission requirements and side-effect details, but the execution semantics are unusually well covered.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action before the parenthetical detail on type conversion and the trailing note on default wait behavior. Every clause earns its place, though the density is slightly heavy for one sentence.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by describing return contents and default timing, and it covers the otherwise-undocumented inputs parameter. Missing only edge-case/error and permission context, so it is close to complete for calling the tool correctly.

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 80% (only 'inputs' is undocumented in the schema), and the description fills that gap precisely by explaining the {inputName: value} shape and the automatic conversion of values to Orchestrator types. This adds real meaning beyond the structured fields.

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+resource ('Run a workflow') and how it is identified (by id or name), which separates it from run_action and run_script siblings by resource type. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the 'by default waits' behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance nor any mention of alternatives like vro_run_action or when wait=false is preferable. A reader can infer intent but gets no routing help.

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