JamJet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Start a workflow execution,' implying a write operation that initiates a process, but fails to mention critical details like whether this is asynchronous, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a tool that likely triggers significant system actions.

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 extremely concise with just three words: 'Start a workflow execution.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to the core purpose.

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 (likely a mutation with side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and nested input objects, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a workflow execution entails, what the tool returns, or any behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 input schema fully documents all parameters (input, tenant_id, workflow_id, workflow_version) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic information about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or usage context, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Start a workflow execution' clearly states the action (start/run) and resource (workflow execution), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'workflow execution' entails in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like jamjet_cancel_execution or jamjet_get_execution, which also relate to workflow executions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a workflow_id, or contrast with siblings like jamjet_list_executions for viewing executions or jamjet_cancel_execution for stopping them. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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