Test run node

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint but not why; the description supplies the concrete consequence — the node makes its actual third-party call, so a 'send' node really sends. It also discloses the expression pass-through behavior and that the result names affected fields, which no structured field covers.

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?

Side-effect warning is front-loaded before the alternative routing, and every sentence carries distinct information (real call, expression passthrough, when to use run_workflow instead, return value). No padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description still states it returns the node's raw output, and it covers the two behavioral traits an agent most needs (real side effects, unresolved expressions) plus the correct escalation path to run_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 100% and both params are described in-schema (node id within saved graph, workflow id from list_workflows/create_workflow). The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so the 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 precise verb+resource ('Run one saved node on its own') and immediately scopes it as a real, side-effecting single-node test analogous to the editor button. It is clearly distinguishable from run_workflow, which it names explicitly.

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 the exact use case (verify a node's configuration and connection in isolation) and an explicit exclusion with an alternative: for real inter-node data, deploy and use run_workflow. The 'no upstream run' condition is spelled out rather than inferred.

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