Execute Workflow

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as whether execution is asynchronous, returns a run ID, or has potential side effects. The phrase 'optionally passing input data' is already captured by the schema.

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 a single sentence that efficiently states the action and the optional parameter. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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 side-effecting tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the caller gets back (e.g., run ID, status), whether the workflow must already exist, or how this relates to sibling workflow tools. This leaves the agent uncertain about the execution result.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both flow_id and input_data, so the baseline is 3. The description merely rephrases the optional input_data without adding detail like expected format or examples.

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 tool executes a workflow with optional input data, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from workflow creation, deletion, or listing, though it does not explicitly contrast with lyzr_trigger_workflow_with_file.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lyzr_trigger_workflow_with_file or how to decide between executing a workflow and starting a task. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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