common-invoke-workflow-by-path

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 states 'Executes workflow action', implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's destructive (e.g., changes item state), potential side effects (e.g., triggers notifications), or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe use.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying key details like 'by its path'.

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 complexity of a workflow execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., mutation effects, permissions), usage context, or return values. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide sufficient guidance for safe and effective use in a Sitecore environment.

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%, with all 5 parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 verb ('Executes') and resource ('workflow action for a Sitecore item'), specifying it's done 'by its path'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'common-invoke-workflow-by-id' by indicating the path-based approach, though it doesn't explicitly mention the sibling. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the 'common-invoke-workflow-by-id' sibling. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., item must exist, workflow state), exclusions, or typical scenarios. Usage is implied only by the tool name and parameters, with no explicit instructions.

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