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 burden. It does disclose the return shape usefully ('next prompt + opaque state, or a terminal changeset with a focus hint'), which is real behavioral value, but it omits side effects, permission requirements, and whether state is persisted across calls.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the return contract and the body instruction. Dense and efficient, though the parenthetical flow list slightly interrupts the flow of reading.

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?

For a stateful, nested-object tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does cover the return contract and flow values, which is the critical part. However, it leaves projectId undefined and gives no guidance on how state/response should be threaded across successive calls, which is central to a multi-step workflow.

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 50%; the nested body object is documented only as '{ flow, state?, response? }' with no enums in the schema. The description compensates by supplying the flow values and telling the agent to place the 'v1 workflow body in body', but projectId is left unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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?

States a specific verb (run) and resource (Story-Mapping methodology workflow), and enumerates the flow values (add | task-curate | phase-assign), which distinguishes it from every sibling (webhook/share/member/project utilities). It falls short of 5 because 'Story-Mapping methodology workflow' is a domain concept the agent must already know; no sibling is named as a contrast.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is referenced. The flow enum hints at three sub-modes but never explains which flow to pick or under what circumstances.

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