Run workflow

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

Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, and the description adds material context beyond them: it runs in the user's real Cloudflare account against real services, Nodes2Cloud stores nothing, and it counts against a per-connection daily call limit. It also discloses that return shape differs between simple and durable workflows, which no annotation covers. No contradiction with destructiveHint=true.

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?

Front-loads the action and the return-shape fork, then layers side effects and the rate-limit note. Every sentence contributes a distinct fact with no restatement of the title.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description covers the cases an agent actually needs to act on: interchangeable return types, the follow-up call for durable runs, real-world side effects, data retention, and quota. Nothing required to invoke or interpret it is missing.

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%, so workflowId, via, payload and instanceId are all self-documented; the description only restates that the payload is an optional trigger input. It adds the useful implicit link that instanceId enables polling via get_run, but that behavior is already spelled out in the schema text. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Run a deployed workflow once, for real') and then splits the outcome by workflow kind: simple workflows return HTTP status/duration/body, durable ones return instanceId and status. That differentiation makes it identifiable against siblings like call_deployed_workflow or test_run_node without opening a 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?

Explicitly says to use it 'after deploying to show the user a real result' and to follow durable runs with get_run, so both the entry condition and the follow-up path are clear. It stops short of naming when to prefer call_deployed_workflow or test_run_node instead, which leaves one sibling comparison to inference.

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