Run workflow

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

The description discloses real side effects, billing details (1 credit + model usage), the short wait and terminal/running return, and the requirement of pre-built steps. This goes well beyond the annotations (openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and provides actionable behavioral expectations.

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 deliver the main action, billing, return behavior, polling instruction, and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place; the description is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what the return contains (terminal if finished, status 'running' otherwise) and how to proceed. It also covers prerequisites and alternatives, making the tool fully usable from the description alone.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), and the description adds no additional parameter-level detail. The baseline of 3 applies; the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 opens with 'Run a workflow now', clearly stating the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing immediate execution (vs schedule_run), mentions polling with get_workflow_execution, and references invoke_agent for the prerequisite, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use it: 'now' implies immediate execution as opposed to scheduling, and it explicitly names invoke_agent for missing steps and get_workflow_execution for polling. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with schedule_run for future runs, but the guidance is strong.

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