Call deployed workflow

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, openWorldHint, and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context by stating it executes for real in the user's Cloudflare account and consumes the connection's daily workflow-call quota. It stops short of describing failure behavior or what specifically a destructive run can affect, which keeps it below a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with verb, resource, and identifier form, followed by the routing condition and then the cost/discovery notes. No sentence is filler and nothing important is buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation; the description covers purpose, when to prefer it, quota cost, and where to find valid arguments. It omits error/retry behavior and permission prerequisites for a destructive, open-world call, which is a minor but real gap.

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% and both parameters are documented, including that `arguments` must match the target tool's schema sourced from list_deployed_tools. The description restates that same guidance rather than adding syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Call one of the user's deployed agent-tool workflows ... by its tool name or workflow id") and constrains scope to workflows with an MCP Tool trigger, which cleanly separates it from run_workflow and list_deployed_tools. An agent can identify the right tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: use it when the workflow is not in the tool list, with the concrete reason (a workflow deployed since connecting only appears after reconnect but is callable here immediately). It also names the sibling list_deployed_tools as the discovery path for callable tools and their argument schemas.

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