run_workflow

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

The description details that a workflow may run arbitrary shell commands, Python, write files, and make HTTP requests, explaining the nature of destructiveness beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true). There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the main action and output, followed by a concise warning. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Without an output schema, the description provides the return structure ({status, workflow, outputs}) and covers safety warnings. It mentions dry_run_workflow for preview. It could also reference validate_workflow for completeness, but it is adequately thorough given the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description only paraphrases the schema (e.g., workflow is a name or path, params are optional) and adds no substantive extra meaning 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 clearly states that the tool executes a workflow and returns results, specifying inputs (workflow name/path and optional params) and output structure ({status, workflow, outputs}). This is distinct from siblings like list_workflows, validate_workflow, and dry_run_workflow.

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 warns that the tool is destructive and advises calling dry_run_workflow first to preview side effects, and only running trusted workflows. This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool vs. the alternative, though it could also mention validate_workflow.

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