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

Annotations provide only openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, leaving behavioral disclosure to the description. The description delivers the critical behaviors: static validation happens BEFORE the write, error-severity findings mint nothing (valid=false, created=false), and successful writes return advisory findings. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and failure-semantics context an agent needs and is well beyond what the annotations convey.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence carries a distinct job: scope, authoring source, validation behavior, publish option, and sibling routing. It is slightly heavy with parenthetical asides ('valid=false, created=false'), but the core purpose is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 mutation tool with a nested definition object and a conditional publish side-effect, the description covers the full calling flow: what to pass, how to author it, what validation does, what a failed vs. successful write yields, and how publishing is handled. An output schema exists, so return-value shapes are already documented, and the agent is left with no material gaps.

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. The description adds genuine value on top: it tells the agent to author the definition against get_workflow_definition_schema, explains the validation consequence for a bad definition, and frames publish=true against the alternative publish_workflow tool. This gives each parameter decision context the schema alone doesn't provide.

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 and resource: 'add a new version to an EXISTING workflow (by workflow_id)'. It explicitly scopes to workflows that already exist and closes with the parenthetical exclusion '(For a brand-new workflow, use create_workflow.)', which clearly differentiates it from its closest sibling without needing to open 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('to evolve a workflow you already created'), an explicit when-not-to-use with the named alternative ('For a brand-new workflow, use create_workflow'), and routes to the correct related tools for authoring (get_workflow_definition_schema) and later publishing (publish_workflow). No inference is required.

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