put-workflow-run-by-workflow-id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but offers no behavioral details. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects (e.g., job creation, resource consumption), or expected outcomes. This leaves the agent with minimal context for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'Run a workflow', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While under-specified, it is not verbose or poorly structured, earning full marks for brevity and clarity within its limited scope.

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 complexity (inferred from sibling tools involving workflows and jobs), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is highly incomplete. It does not cover behavior, parameters, usage context, or expected results, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain what 'workflowId' represents (e.g., identifier format, source, constraints) or how it affects the 'run' operation. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters undocumented.

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 'Run a workflow' restates the tool name 'put-workflow-run-by-workflow-id' in simpler terms, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'run' and resource 'workflow', but lacks specificity about what 'run' entails (e.g., execution, triggering, processing) and does not differentiate from siblings like 'post-workflows' or 'get-workflows-by-workflow-id'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing workflow), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'post-workflows' (which might create workflows) or 'get-workflows-by-workflow-id' (which might retrieve workflow details).

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