run_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about edition-dependent availability and 404/empty-list outcomes, but does not explain the destructive impact or side effects of running a workflow.

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 four sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. It includes endpoint and body-handling details efficiently, though the structure could be slightly tighter.

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 a write tool with no output schema and incomplete parameter documentation, the description covers availability and body handling but omits return values, specific permission requirements, and the workflow run's outcome. It is adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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 low (33%), and the description compensates partially by noting that body fields are API-specific and JSON-encoded strings must remain strings. However, it provides no semantics for project_id and workflow_id beyond their names and schema types.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Run workflow') and specifies the HTTP endpoint. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like stop_workflow_run or get_workflow_run, but the core action is unambiguous.

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 mentions availability constraints but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit conditions for selection among related tools like create_workflow or update_workflow.

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