run_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'run' and 'optional argument overrides,' but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a mutation (likely yes), what permissions are required, if it's idempotent, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies state.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it states the core action and key feature (argument overrides) without fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 likely performs mutations (running workflows) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral traits needed for safe invocation. For a 3-parameter tool in a complex domain (workflow execution), this leaves significant gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (workflow_id, async, args). The description adds minimal value by implying 'args' are for overrides, but doesn't clarify syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('run') and resource ('workflow'), specifying it executes a workflow with optional argument overrides. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_workflow' (which retrieves) and 'list_workflows' (which lists), but could be more specific about what 'run' entails (e.g., execution vs. scheduling).

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing workflow ID), compare to siblings like 'get_workflow_run' or 'list_workflow_runs', or specify contexts (e.g., for automation vs. testing).

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