jamjet_run_workflow

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

The description discloses key side effects: creates a new execution record, appends events, enqueues a work item. It states the operation is not reversible and gives the alternative for cancellation. It also mentions no authentication required. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly.

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 relatively concise (3-4 sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes necessary side-effect details and cross-references to sibling tools. Slightly verbose in explaining the return format and alternatives, but each sentence adds value. Not perfectly minimal but close.

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 the complexity of starting a workflow (side effects, return value, error conditions, tenant scoping), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, side effects, return format, failure conditions, irreversibility, alternative actions, authentication requirements. No output schema exists, so the description adequately compensates by explaining the return object.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context about the return value containing execution_id and its format, but does not add extra meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves. Therefore, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Start a new durable workflow execution', which clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like jamjet_get_execution and jamjet_cancel_execution by focusing on starting a new execution. The description also explicitly mentions that it kicks off a registered workflow.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this to kick off a workflow that has already been registered with the runtime.' It also tells when not to use it by mentioning 'Fails if the workflow_id + version combination is not registered.' It lists alternative tools for subsequent operations (e.g., jamjet_get_execution, jamjet_cancel_execution) and gives an alternative for stopping a running workflow.

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