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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write nature is known. The description adds real value beyond that: it clarifies the artifact stays unpublished and is never enabled or run, and it discloses the return payload (workflow id, validation, sku_url) despite there being no output schema.

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 with zero filler, and the core action plus its scope limit are front-loaded before the return-value note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral constraints (draft-only, never executed) and enumerates what it returns, closing the output-schema gap. Only the pivot semantics of idempotency/preview_mode are left to the schema.

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 75%, so the schema largely documents the parameters itself. The description only names 'nodes, edges' as the graph, which the schema already describes in detail, and adds no meaning for dry_run, preview_mode, category, or idempotency_key. 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States a specific verb and resource (validates a workflow graph and saves it as an unpublished draft) and explicitly bounds the scope with 'it never publishes, enables or runs it.' An agent can immediately tell this is a draft-only creation tool, distinct from any publishing or execution action.

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?

The negative scoping ('never publishes, enables or runs it') implies this is the drafting step rather than the publish/run step, which gives some guidance. However, no alternatives or siblings are named and no explicit when-to-use condition (e.g., vs. dry_run validation only) is stated, so usage is implied rather than directed.

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