run_workflow

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

Annotations indicate write, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open world. The description adds behavior: sequential execution, pausing at approval gates, and state changes. It does not contradict annotations and provides clear return info.

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 concise with three sentences, an Args section, and a Returns section. It front-loads the main action and is well-structured without unnecessary words.

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?

Given a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers input, behavior, and return value. It references sibling tools (approve) but lacks error handling info. Still highly complete.

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?

The only parameter, workflow_id, is fully explained: it comes from plan_workflow. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so effectively.

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 clearly states it executes a planned workflow and pauses at approval gates. It distinguishes from sibling tools like plan_workflow and approve by specifying the action and sequencing.

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 explicitly tells when to use (after planning) and what to do when pausing (call approve()). It references the prerequisite workflow_id from plan_workflow, but lacks explicit exclusion criteria for when not to use.

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