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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds a meaningful behavioral constraint — saving requires a successful check of the exact revision — but does not cover permissions, archive side effects, or retry behavior beyond the idempotency annotation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action list and then the key revision-check constraint for save. No redundancy, and details correctly live in the rich schema rather than being repeated in the description.

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?

Output schema exists, annotations cover the safety profile, and schema descriptions cover all parameters. The description supplies the high-level action set and the critical revision requirement for save, though it omits action-level prerequisites that are handled by the schema.

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 100%, so all 14 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond noting that saving requires a successful check of the exact revision; the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 enumerates the supported actions (list, create, update, inspect, clone, archive, save) and the resource (customer-owned Workflow code). Purpose is clear, but it does not name or explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like workflow_validate or workflow_run.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workflow_validate, workflow_run, or workflow_runs. The action enum in the schema implies the tool's scope, but the description does not state when-not to use it or which sibling to choose for validation versus execution.

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