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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It adds real behavioral context beyond them: the work lands in a single open draft, edits stay there, and the lifecycle requires validation plus one real sample run before one save. It stops short of saying what happens if a draft is already open (replaced vs. error), which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then next steps, then a constraint and a concrete example. Every sentence carries distinct information — no restatement of the title or schema.

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?

For a two-parameter draft-creation tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers purpose, lifecycle, and constraints adequately. The gap is that it never indicates whether the call returns a workflow identifier the agent will need for the follow-up tools it recommends.

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 only two simple parameters, so the schema already defines both fields. The description contributes only an example name value ("Invoice review"), which hints at naming style but adds no semantics the schema lacks. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource plus scope: "Open one workflow for editing," and immediately names the trigger condition (user asks for a new workflow). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the run path ("Do not use to run it") and from save/test siblings by name.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use condition, an explicit when-not-to-use exclusion, and routes the agent to named alternatives for the post-creation steps (workflow_test_run for testing, workflow_save_version once at completion). Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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