Start flow run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing credit spend, downstream side effects, the confirmation requirement, and non-idempotent retry behavior. It does not describe the return payload, but no output schema exists and annotations carry the rest.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the operation stated first and the confirmation warning second. 'This endpoint is used to' is mild filler, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with a fully documented schema, the description covers the key risks (credits, downstream actions, confirmation, retries). It omits how to track the resulting run (e.g., get_run_details), which a fully complete definition would mention.

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 7 well-documented parameters (account, confirm, payload, payload_file, saved_item_id, user_id, project_id). The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so the schema does the heavy lifting; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('trigger a flow run via API'), which is clear enough to act on. It does not differentiate from siblings like kill_flow, get_run_details, or list_flows, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

Gives real usage conditions: explicit confirmation is required, runs can spend credits, and unknown outcomes must not be auto-resubmitted. It names no alternatives (e.g., kill_flow to stop, get_input_schema to inspect before running), so routing guidance is incomplete but the when/when-not is clear.

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