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

Beyond the annotations (which only say it is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, closed-world), the description discloses the draft-only side effect, the up-to-two-minute latency, the possibility of a clarifying question or template offer, and the exact not-ready shape ('build_id and status building'). That is the behavior an agent needs to avoid mistakenly believing a build completed or was deployed.

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?

Purpose and side-effect boundary are front-loaded, then timing and the polling continuation, then the when-not-to-use rule. Despite the density of the second sentence, every clause carries operational information (latency, status shape, get_build handoff) and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description still specifies the return contract (build_id plus status 'building') and the follow-up tool. Combined with the draft-only guarantee, latency expectation, and resume path, an agent has everything needed to invoke this five-parameter, zero-required tool correctly on the first and subsequent calls.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an increment by weaving the parameters into a conversational lifecycle — build_id means 'answer its questions, resume after connecting an app, or change its draft' and answers/request are tied to that flow. It does not separately explain skip_templates or resume semantics beyond what the schema already says, so it stops short of a 5.

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 opening clause names a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Build a new workflow or agent from what the person wants ... and save it as a draft.' It immediately distinguishes itself from deploy/run/update siblings by stating 'nothing is deployed, scheduled or run,' so an agent can place it in the lifecycle without reading another schema.

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 explicit routing rules: 'Search existing workflows and templates first; build when nothing fits,' and it names the follow-up path ('call get_build with it') plus the conditions for calling build again (answering a question, after connecting an app, changing a draft). The alternative and the exclusion are both stated rather than inferred.

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