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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, idempotent=false). The description goes well beyond that: it discloses the 10-credit cost charged once per proposal, the API-key requirement with the exact header format, the persistence semantics of save, and the honest-degradation behavior (partial flag, missing names, refusal instead of inventing steps). This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then cost/auth/logistics, which is a sensible ordering. It is dense rather than padded, though the pricing clause ('Costs 10 credits, the price of one AI generation, charged once per proposal') and the full developer URL slightly stretch a definition that already covers the essentials.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, it still summarises the return shape, and it covers the operational facts an agent needs before calling: mutation cost, credential requirement, and the save-to-run lifecycle with workflow_run. Nothing material is missing for a two-parameter tool.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description restates save's effect (kept on the account, runnable by returned id) and the goal's intent, adding marginal framing rather than new syntax or constraints beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource (describe a job in plain words → get back a workflow) and specifies the exact return shape: a name, inputs, and ordered steps each with a rationale. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the proposal is built only from tools the server actually has, and explicitly hands off to workflow_run once saved.

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?

Clear context for when to use it (you have a plain-language goal and want a plan) and it names the follow-on tool workflow_run plus the condition (save: true, then run by returned id). It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or a direct comparison to workflow_list for inspecting existing workflows, but the routing is otherwise unambiguous.

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