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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: no provider calls means nothing is charged, and fixtures run in an isolated no-network environment. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false, since a successful inline check evidently produces a source_artifact_id. It does not cover idempotency or repeat-run behavior, so it stops short of a 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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by mode semantics, prerequisites, and cost. No filler or restated title language.

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 five-parameter tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs that structured fields do not: the prerequisite ordering relative to save and run, the mode-dependent identity requirements, network isolation, and absence of charges.

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, but the description adds genuine meaning: 'mode check validates inline source (before it is persisted) or one exact draft revision; mode fixtures runs that revision against isolated, no-network fixtures' explains what the enum values actually do and the exclusivity of source vs. workflow_id+revision.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource (check Workflow code) plus the key scoping distinction: without a production run. It then differentiates the two modes concretely, so an agent can distinguish this from workflow_run and workflow_definition without opening any 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?

Explicit routing: 'Use before workflow_definition save, which requires a passing check, and before workflow_run.' The two modes are each given a when-to-use condition (inline/pre-persistence vs. exact draft revision with fixtures), 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.