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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: no action runs code or charges credits, and save publishes exactly one draft revision that must already be validated. It stops short of clarifying archive reversibility or required permissions, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose then routing, then the save precondition, then the side-effect disclaimer. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 14-parameter, 7-action tool with nested objects, the description adequately covers purpose, sibling routing, and the key save precondition, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. It does not map which parameters apply to which of the seven actions, a modest remaining gap.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only lightly reinforces semantics ('save publishes one exact draft revision' maps to revision), adding little beyond structured data. Baseline 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?

States a specific resource (customer-owned Workflow code) and enumerates the exact lifecycle verbs (list, create, update, get, clone, archive, save). It explicitly distinguishes itself from workflow_validate and workflow_run, so an agent can route without opening the 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: 'Use for authoring and versioning only; use workflow_validate to check code and workflow_run to execute it.' It also states the precondition that save requires the revision to have passed validation, leaving nothing to inference.

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