workflow_workflow_define

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the steps structure (name, fn, retries?, etc.) but does not mention idempotency, overwrite behavior, required permissions, or return value. The hint to use builtin_fns is useful but not sufficient for full transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded with '[workflow]' and 'Define a named workflow'. It packs useful information in few words. Could slightly benefit from mentioning return value, but it remains efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (workflow definition with multiple parameters, no annotations, output schema present but undocumented), the description covers the basic purpose and step structure but omits key context like overwrite behavior, error scenarios, and the relationship with workflow_step_define. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the structure of the 'steps' array (each step has name, fn, optional fields). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema which only defines steps as an array of any. However, the 'name' and 'description' parameters are not elaborated further.

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 clearly states the verb 'Define' and resource 'workflow', and the title implies it is a workflow definition tool. It distinguishes from siblings like workflow_workflow_delete, workflow_workflow_run, etc., by focusing on creation.

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 hints at usage by suggesting to 'Use builtin_fns to list available fns', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like workflow_step_define or other workflow operations. No direct comparisons or exclusions are provided.

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