Unseen Workflow Compiler

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful non-structured context: this is a legacy path, registration through it is rejected, and plugin connections must use browser OAuth. It omits what happens on success (session/token issuance) and any lockout or rate-limit behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case followed by the two exclusion rules. No filler or repetition, and each sentence carries distinct routing information.

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?

With no output schema and no return-value documentation, the description leaves an agent guessing what a successful call yields (session token, cookie, user object) and how credentials persist. It fully covers when-to-use and rejection behavior, but the auth result contract is a meaningful gap for a sign-in 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 the schema already documents all four parameters, including the deprecated 'register' flag and its rejection. The description reinforces that registration is unavailable but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource combination ('sign-in for an existing password account') and flags the tool as legacy, which is enough to separate it from a modern auth flow. It does not name the OTP siblings (auth_request_otp/auth_verify_otp) directly, so differentiation is by scope rather than by explicit sibling reference.

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?

Explicitly scopes use to existing password accounts and rules out account creation and ChatGPT/Codex plugin connections, pointing those to browser sign-in/OAuth. It stops short of routing OTP-based or passwordless flows to the sibling OTP tools, leaving one alternative unstated.

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

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

Annotations set readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but the description carries useful extras: it defines the input scope limits, explains that raw `text` is auto-segmented into `sources`, and describes the clarification/resume loop. It does not disclose cost/latency or whether artifacts persist, so it stops short of fully covering the non-read-only behavior the annotations imply.

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 clearly delimited by INPUT SCOPE / HOW TO STRUCTURE / EDITING GUIDANCE headers. It is dense and long, and the editing guidance arguably belongs with the sibling tools, but each section earns its place and nothing is padding.

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 10-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting: it names the returned artifacts (which substitutes for an output schema) and covers the resume path via jobId/priorAnswers. What is largely left to the schema is auth (authToken) and hostContext semantics.

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 already 90%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning the schema does not: the mutual-exclusion rule between `sources` and `text`, the 1..60 chunk / <=2000 char constraints, excerpt fidelity, and the spec-vs-svg editing distinction for downstream calls.

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+output set: 'Turn supplied document evidence or raw operational text into a publication-ready workflow diagram' and enumerates the artifacts (SVG, Mermaid, Excalidraw, studioUrl). It also names the sibling tools it is not (autofix_workflow, revise_workflow) for editing tasks, so an agent can distinguish it from the rest of the family.

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 when-to-use and when-not: 'Use reviewed written procedures only. Do not interpret scans, images, chart/diagram geometry or unlabeled arrows.' It further routes editing work: cosmetic edits go to the returned SVG XML, structural/topological edits go to `spec` plus autofix_workflow or revise_workflow.

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

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses that unsupported instructions error out and that the tool will not perform general rewrites, and the phrase 'the returned spec' implies it returns a revised spec. It does not mention auth handling despite the authToken param.

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 sentences, fully front-loaded: capability first, alternative route second, hard limits last. Every sentence carries routing or behavioral information with no filler.

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 mutating 4-param tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers scope, exclusions, error behavior, and the follow-up handoff to autofix_workflow. Missing only minor details such as authentication expectations and an explicit statement of what the return looks like.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds instruction semantics not fully captured by the schema: operations are keyed on node IDs, and revisions may require 'confirmed source evidence,' which ties the instruction to the additionalSources parameter.

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 states a specific verb+resource scope: 'Apply explicit node label/role changes or node removal using node IDs, or request connector autofix.' It also draws an explicit boundary against general natural-language rewriting, which separates it from sibling tools like enhance_workflow and autofix_workflow.

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?

It names exactly when to use the tool (explicit node edits, removals, connector autofix), when not to ('For other changes, including new steps or edges'), and the alternative path (edit the returned spec, then call autofix_workflow). It also states the failure behavior for anything unsupported.

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