submit_workflow_input

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the submission is destructive, idempotent, or requires specific permissions. The lack of any behavioral context beyond 'submit' leaves the agent guessing about 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?

The description is very short (3 words), which is concise but too brief to be helpful. It front-loads the verb and resource but omits necessary details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description should still explain what 'user input' means and how it relates to workflows. It does not mention the return value or any side effects, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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?

The input schema has only one parameter ('params') with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what 'params' contains (e.g., JSON object of workflow inputs). Since there is only one parameter, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 'Submit workflow user input' clearly indicates the tool's action (submit) and resource (workflow user input). It distinguishes itself from siblings like cancel_workflow or confirm_workflow by focusing on submitting input rather than cancelling or confirming.

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 given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like confirm_workflow or create_workflow. It does not specify prerequisites, such as requiring an active workflow, nor does it mention any conditions under which input submission is appropriate.

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