Run workflow

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

Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: real execution with side effects, billing, brief wait, return status handling. Annotations only provide openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so description carries the burden and excels.

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, each essential: action+billing, behavior+return, precondition. Front-loaded and compact with no wasted words.

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 no output schema, description fully covers return behavior and polling. Precondition and parameter use cases are clear. Complete for an agent to decide and use correctly.

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%, but description enhances trigger_payload with a concrete use case (sample body for webhook workflows). workflow_id is already precise in schema. Adds value without redundancy.

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 clearly states 'Run a workflow now — a real execution with real side effects', specifying the verb (run) and resource (workflow), and distinguishes it from scheduling or polling tools. Billing details further clarify the nature.

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?

Guidance is provided: the workflow must have steps built, and after running, if it doesn't finish, poll with get_workflow_execution. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the sibling tools list implies alternatives.

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