create_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose side effects, permissions, or safety concerns. It mentions displaying a diagram and a confirmation step but does not address reversibility, overwrite behavior, or error cases. The YAML struct hint adds some context, but behavioral traits are insufficiently covered.

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 somewhat verbose, containing redundant statements (e.g., 'Create a new workflow using YAML definition' and 'This function creates a workflow from a YAML specification'). It includes an Args/Returns section and a code block, but could be more tightly written without losing clarity.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description reasonably covers the tool's purpose, usage, and parameter format. However, it lacks detail on expected behavior, error states, or prerequisites, and does not fully differentiate from the many sibling tools that exist on the server.

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 must compensate. It provides a YAML struct example and states that the parameter is a 'YAML string defining the workflow structure,' which adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. However, it does not fully specify all YAML fields or constraints, leaving 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 tool creates a new workflow using a YAML definition, and distinguishes it from the similarly named 'modify_workflow' tool, which handles updates. The verb 'create' and resource 'workflow' are specific, and the YAML format is explicitly referenced.

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 explicit guidance: confirm with user before execution and later use 'modify_workflow' for updates. It outlines a multi-step process for workflow creation, which helps the agent decide when to use this tool, though it could also note when not to use it.

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