workflow.start

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: the created workflow is durable, it does not execute anything, and it grants no authority. It still omits what the durability/authority model means operationally and what a repeat call does, but the new information is substantive.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the create action and the two exclusions are stated up front. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The gaps are the undocumented parameters and the unexplained 'W1..W7' taxonomy, which an agent needs to supply a valid 'workflow' value.

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?

Both parameters have 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. The only hint is 'W1..W7', which loosely implies what the 'workflow' string should contain, but 'workspace_id' is entirely undocumented and no format/syntax guidance is given for either.

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 ('Create a durable W1..W7 workflow') and implicitly differentiates itself from workflow.run and workflow.status by declaring it does not execute. However, 'W1..W7' is unexplained jargon and no sibling is named explicitly, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 clause 'does not execute or grant authority' gives clear when-not guidance and implies that workflow.run is the tool for execution. There is no explicit statement of when this tool should be preferred over alternatives, but the context is clear enough to route correctly.

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