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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the sign-in prerequisite and the clarification that it 'saves nothing' and returns a schema with one example step rather than a drafted workflow. It stops short of describing the shape or size of the returned schema, so the added value is real but moderate.

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 sign-in prerequisite is usefully front-loaded, but the core purpose is delivered as one long comma-spliced sentence enumerating fields, rules, principles, versions, consent and guardrails, which is hard to scan. Information is dense and none of it is strictly wasted, yet the structure could be split so the purpose precedes the ancillary detail.

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 stateless guide tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: auth precondition, what is returned, the guardrails on content, and the alternative route. It does not indicate how large or structured the returned schema is, which would help an agent plan how to relay it to the user.

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?

There is only one optional 'session' parameter and the input schema documents it fully (100% coverage), including when to omit it for OAuth or key auth. The description contributes nothing about that parameter beyond 'Example arguments: {}', so it adds essentially no meaning beyond the structured schema.

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 states this is a reference for composing a workflow ('how to write a workflow with the user') and explicitly says what it returns: 'A schema with one example step, never a drafted workflow, and it saves nothing.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling read paths (find_workflow, list_workflows, get_workflow). The purpose is clear but is buried in the middle of a long first sentence rather than front-loaded, which slightly weakens it.

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 both an explicit alternative and its selection condition: 'To use an existing workflow instead, find it with find_workflow or list_workflows and open it with get_workflow.' It also names a precondition for this tool (sign-in via connect/connect_verify unless already signed in), so an agent knows both when to call it and when to route elsewhere.

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