run_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses postconditions, on_error, bounded loops/deadline, trace, and warns against blind retries of non-idempotent actions, but it does not cover permission/root requirements, detailed failure behavior, or side effects.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the core operation and then summarize key capabilities. Every clause adds information without repetition or filler.

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?

This is a complex nested workflow tool with no annotations and no schema property descriptions. The description lists actions and a few features, but it is not complete enough to guide correct construction of the nested workflow object without significant schema inspection.

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 0% for a deeply nested workflow object. The description lists the action enum values, but it does not explain workflow-level fields like timeout, return_ui, or max_executed_steps, nor selector predicates, Condition kinds, or per-step semantics, leaving most parameter meaning to inference.

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 specific verb and resource: execute a prevalidated UI/Root workflow in one call, and lists the supported action types. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as batch_ui_actions, workflow_control, or saved_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 phrase 'in ONE call' weakly implies use over multiple atomic calls, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like batch_ui_actions or workflow_control, and no conditions for choosing this tool over saved_workflow or individual action tools.

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