Trigger Workflow With File

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/destructive hints, and the description adds the multipart/form-data detail. However, it does not disclose asynchronous behavior, response expectations, or side effects beyond what the annotations imply. No contradiction.

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?

A single, focused sentence that communicates the core purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan.

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?

The tool has a well-documented schema and useful annotations, but the description does not mention what the API returns or whether the workflow executes synchronously. With no output schema, this missing behavioral information leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'uploading a file' adds slight context for file_content and file_name, but does not elaborate on parameters like additional_fields 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 clearly states the action ('Trigger a workflow run') and the specific method (uploading a file via multipart/form-data). This distinguishes it from generic execution tools like lyzr_execute_workflow, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to choose this tool over other workflow-triggering siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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