unfour.flow.run

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

Adds meaningful traits beyond the annotations: payload-bound confirmation is required even with full_access, policy can block execution, and cancellation does not undo effects. These are valuable operational facts for a non-destructive but open-world mutating tool.

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?

Four dense, front-loaded sentences with no wasted filler. Some phrasing ('payload-bound confirmation') is cryptic, but overall it is efficient and scannable.

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 no coverage, and behavioral traits are decently covered. But for a tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, and 0% schema description coverage, the absence of parameter guidance leaves the definition incomplete.

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 0% across 8 parameters (flowId, inputs, confirm, confirmationText, confirmation_text, workspaceId, environmentId, secretInputNames). The description mentions 'payload-bound confirmation' but never maps it to the confirm/confirmationText params nor explains any input semantics, leaving a major gap.

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+resource ('Start a Flow'), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like unfour.flow.cancel_run and unfour.flow.get_run. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the 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?

Implies usage context by noting the confirmation requirement and that read-only/disabled policy blocks execution, giving implicit preconditions. However, it never states when to use this versus alternatives such as unfour.flow.cancel_run or unfour.flow.get_run, nor exclusions for appropriate scenarios.

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