workflow_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses side effects (creating a task DAG), merge behavior via workflow_id/title, optional per-phase approval gates, default agent assignments per paradigm, dynamic routing rationale 'posted on the wall', and the output of a stage task_id chain. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and dense with actionable details; every sentence earns its place. However, it is a single run-on paragraph with heavy enumeration and nested parentheticals, which makes parsing harder than necessary. Slight structural breakdown into bullets would improve readability without losing content.

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?

For a 12-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers all four paradigms, defaults, templates, parallel-stage semantics, id-based merging, approval gates, routing rationale, and the return format. There are no significant gaps an agent would need to fill elsewhere.

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%, giving a baseline of 3, but the description adds substantial combinatorial meaning: which parameters apply per paradigm, how competitors arrays feed convergence, default designer/implementer/reviewer roles, how stages[i].agents or parallel triggers N-way parallel tasks, and how workflow_id/title produce card merging. This goes well beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

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 verb and resource: it 'turns a multi-agent workflow into a stage-dependency task DAG' for panel display. It enumerates the four supported paradigms and template options, which clearly differentiates it from siblings like workflow_plan or task_create that handle planning or individual task creation.

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 gives explicit context for when to use each paradigm (linear, compete, collaborate, dynamic) and how to configure them, plus template selection and parallel-stage options. However, it never contrasts this tool with sibling alternatives or states exclusions (e.g., when to use workflow_plan instead), so the when-not-to-use guidance is missing.

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