Run Workflow

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses meaningful behavioral details: some pipelines may surface waiting_for_review, agent scripts run via a hosted JS controller and return controller_output plus per-agent outputs and event stream. It also notes the API endpoint equivalence. However, it does not mention auth requirements, error handling, or whether the run is synchronous beyond 'when complete'.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. It uses three concise sentences covering purpose, inputs, and behavioral variations, plus a short API equivalence note. No word is wasted, and all sentences contribute essential information.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (two workflow types, possible review, output structure), the description covers the main points well. It explains the two execution modes and what is returned, and notes the waiting_for_review state. It does not elaborate on the output schema in detail, but an output schema exists in the tool definition, so that is not required. Missing details like approval flow or error cases are non-critical for initial selection.

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 input schema fully covers both parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving concrete examples for inputs (e.g., {files:["doc-…"]} for invoice extraction) and explaining that workflow_id comes from draft_workflow. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema alone.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Start a run of a runnable workflow you authored'. It also distinguishes from sibling view_workflow_run by calling itself the 'write counterpart', and provides the REST API equivalent (same as POST /v1/runs). This makes the tool's unique purpose immediately clear.

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 explicitly frames the tool as the write counterpart to view_workflow_run, guiding when to use it versus its read-only sibling. It also gives a clear prerequisite by telling the user to pass workflow_id from draft_workflow. The distinction between invoice pipelines and agent scripts gives further context on expected behavior.

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