Run workflow

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: provider scopes, locks and credits apply, and confirmation is mandatory with a single submission allowed, tying directly to the confirm parameter and the credit-consuming nature of the run.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the endpoint, with zero filler. It is terse but dense, packing scope, credits, confirmation and single-submission rules into a small footprint.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema and a nested payload, the description covers the key risks (credits, locks, mandatory confirmation, one submission). The payload/inputs structure is left to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage there.

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 already documents all four parameters including the exclusivity of payload vs payload_file. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond noting mandatory confirmation, so baseline 3 applies.

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 conveys the operation only through its HTTP endpoint ('POST /v5/workflow_runs') rather than stating a plain verb and resource. It does implicitly distinguish the run-creating action from siblings like get_workflow_run and list_workflow_runs, but an agent must infer that this triggers execution rather than read it stated directly.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_workflow, preview_operation, or apply_render_batch. The 'one submission only' note is a behavioral constraint, not usage routing, so the agent gets no when/when-not context.

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