team_record_workflow

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

Annotations establish it as a non-read, non-destructive, closed-world write; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it creates only a visual grouping, does not start work, does not alter real parent relationships, and uses revision-based optimistic concurrency via expectedRevision. It stops short of saying what happens on a revision mismatch or whether re-recording is idempotent.

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 core action and immediately followed by the most likely misconception. No filler, though the compressed phrasing 'workflow/run group' costs a little clarity for a marginal gain in brevity.

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 7-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin: an agent cannot construct a valid call without guessing the meaning of most fields or the expected evidence format. Annotations cover the safety profile, but parameter and outcome semantics remain largely absent.

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% across 7 required parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains only expectedRevision (use 0 for new groups); boardId, workflowId, title, parentMemberId, status, and evidence are left entirely unexplained, including what 'evidence' should contain and what parentMemberId references.

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 ('Record an actual caller-owned workflow/run group') and clarifies the semantic scope: it visually groups agents and does not replace parent relationships or start work. That distinguishes it in spirit from siblings like team_record_execution and team_report_member, though no sibling is named.

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?

One concrete usage rule is given ('Use expectedRevision=0 for a new group'), and negative guidance rules out treating this as a real parent link or a work trigger. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over team_report_member, team_record_execution, or team_append_record, which is the main routing ambiguity.

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