start_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states it 'triggers' a workflow, which implies a mutating action, but it does not mention prerequisites, side effects, return behavior, or whether it is synchronous. The 'thin wrapper' note offers some context but is insufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a clarifying relationship to the sibling tool. No wasted words.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states the action and clarifies its relationship to trigger_automation. However, the lack of behavioral transparency (side effects, prerequisites) leaves a gap, and with no annotations, this makes the overall context only adequate.

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 100% (both route_name and data are described in the schema). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only repeats the concept of 'route name' in the opening sentence.

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 function: 'Triggers a workflow automation endpoint by route name.' It distinguishes start_workflow from the general-purpose trigger_automation by explicitly labeling it as a workflow-specific entry point and noting that trigger_automation supports non-workflow automation types.

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 direct guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative: it is a stable, workflow-specific wrapper, while trigger_automation is the general-purpose tool that also supports agents. This contrasts the two and implies use start_workflow for workflows and trigger_automation for other automation types.

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