glm_5_run_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'auditable planning job' and optional quality gates, but omits whether the operation is read-only or destructive, what side effects occur, required permissions, or error conditions. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the bare action.

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 sentences – very concise and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence adds an optional capability. However, the brevity sacrifices clarity on required parameters and usage context, making it less helpful despite being short.

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 8 parameters (3 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how to specify the workflow, what 'creates a job' entails, how approval/proposal IDs relate, or what the return format is. The tool is complex enough to demand a richer description.

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%, meaning parameters lack descriptions. The description adds value only for workflowId (implied) and quality gates (explicitly named). Parameters like objective, workingDirectory, approvalId, proposalId, and createJob are not explained. The agent must guess their roles from schema names and 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 clearly states the main action and resource: 'Instantiate a reusable workflow as an auditable planning job.' It distinguishes from siblings like glm_5_create_workflow by focusing on instantiation rather than creation. The mention of optional quality gates adds behavioral nuance, but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, sibling tools like glm_5_execute_development_task or glm_5_plan_code_change may overlap in purpose. The description does not specify prerequisites (e.g., workflow must exist) or when not to use it.

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