run_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says only 'Trigger a workflow_dispatch event,' but does not mention that this creates a new workflow run, may require write permissions, or depends on the workflow having a workflow_dispatch trigger. This is a significant transparency gap for a side-effecting operation.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource, followed by a documentation link. Every word earns its place and there is no wasted text.

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?

Despite full schema coverage, the tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry more context. It fails to mention preconditions (workflow must have workflow_dispatch), side effects (a new run is created), or permission requirements. The docs link is useful but does not compensate for the absence of inline guidance.

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 fully documents all five parameters. The description adds no additional parameter details, but it does include a link to the official docs, which is a minimal value-add beyond the schema itself.

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 uses a specific verb ('Trigger') and resource ('a workflow_dispatch event for a workflow'), which clearly identifies the tool's action. It is distinct from sibling tools like rerun_workflow_run, cancel_workflow_run, or list_workflow_runs.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose, so an agent can infer it should be used to manually start a workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, such as when rerunning or approving a run would be more appropriate.

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