common-new-item-workflow-event

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

Annotations state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this writes data without destroying it. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it doesn't say whether an entry is appended (history is usually additive), whether it requires the item to be in a workflow, or what happens if the item has no workflow state. With annotations covering only the safety profile, this mutation tool leaves a meaningful disclosure gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It's efficient, though it could have used a second clause to distinguish itself from the state-changing sibling without harming 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 seven-parameter workflow-mutating tool with no output schema, the description is under-specified. It omits when the tool should be preferred, what workflow constraints apply, and any behavioral contract (appending vs. replacing history), leaving the agent to infer too much.

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 all seven parameters (id, path, text, database, language, newState, oldState) are already fully documented in the schema, including default behavior for database and state fallbacks. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond this, which is appropriate given the schema does the work.

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 a specific verb (Creates) and resource (a new entry in the workflow history for a Sitecore item), differentiating it from the sibling common-get-item-workflow-event, which retrieves rather than creates. It does not, however, explicitly reference the direct alternative common-invoke-workflow, which also modifies workflow state.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus a state-changing alternative like common-invoke-workflow, nor any mention of prerequisites such as item lock state, workflow membership, or permissions. The description only implies usage from its name and sibling set.

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