workflow_create_from_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention permissions required, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens if the template ID is invalid. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return value sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 2 parameters (one required), and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks important context about permissions, error conditions, and differentiation from sibling tools.

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?

The description explicitly lists both parameters with brief explanations, adding meaningful context beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't explain where to find template IDs, what format they use, or constraints on the optional name parameter, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new workflow from a template'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'workflow_create' (which presumably creates workflows without templates), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'workflow_create' or 'workflow_templates_list'. It mentions the need for a template ID but doesn't explain how to obtain one or when this method is preferred over creating workflows from scratch.

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