Run workflow preview

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only but not destructive, so the description only needed to add behavior beyond that. It adds the 'existing image object' prerequisite and the 'may report deferred blocks' outcome, but it does not disclose side effects, whether execution is asynchronous, or what a deferred block means in practice.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded, with two sentences that avoid redundancy. It could be improved by using the available space for more parameter or usage detail, but as a concise definition it is effective.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description only vaguely says the result may report deferred blocks; it does not describe the overall return format, whether a run ID is returned, polling/async behavior, or failure semantics. For a non-read-only operation with three required parameters, this is insufficient for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the three undocumented parameters. It only clarifies that the workflow runs against an existing image object, which maps loosely to image_object_key, but it does not explain org_slug, workflow_slug, how to obtain them, or any value-format expectations beyond the schema's length constraints.

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 states a specific action ('Run a workflow') against a specific resource ('an existing Score Studio image object') and adds that the result may report deferred blocks. It is clear and not tautological, though it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools that also execute work.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as scorestudio_start_training or scorestudio_list_workflows. No alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisite conditions are mentioned; usage is only implied by the tool name and action.

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