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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description still adds substantial behavioral context: the returned artifacts (diagram, step_checks, swap_options, suggestions with reasons, proposed steps, open_in_builder, unsaved portable draft, review hash, handoff_check). It also discloses non-obvious semantics — suggestions never block the draft, only user-approved changes are applied, and an approval hash never authorizes external actions.

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 trigger are front-loaded, and the sentence-per-topic structure is logical (when to call, quick check, returns, escalation path, limits). It is dense and occasionally overloaded — the "Quick check:" and "Returns ..." sentences pack many clauses — but given ten parameters and a rich return payload, little is truly wasted.

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 ten-parameter, output-schema-bearing tool, the description covers the dominant calling patterns, the meaning of the results, and the safety boundaries. The main omission is any guidance on custom_skills/governing_skills and how skill inventory affects the draft, which an agent would have to infer from the schema alone.

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?

With 70% schema coverage the schema does much of the work, but the description adds real meaning: slugs are pinned to current revisions and run in order, full steps should be sent for custom notes and dependencies, and user_inputs are treated as supplied and excluded from the draft hash. It does not explain custom_skills or governing_skills, which are the schema's most complex inputs, so it is strong but incomplete.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Check a workflow, or a change to one") and immediately enumerates the change types it validates (swap, add, remove, reorder). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_workflow steps and plan_workflow as the sources of step ids, so an agent can place it in the flow without opening other schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ("whenever the user wants to see, check or change a workflow") plus a timing constraint ("before showing any plan") and clear exclusions ("does not compose with our AI, save, execute or certify approval"). It stops short of full routing guidance — e.g. it never says whether plan_workflow should precede it when no workflow exists yet — so the alternative-selection story is clear but not complete.

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