create_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the two creation modes and the return contents (workflow_id + node summary), but says nothing about persistence, where the workflow is stored, or what happens if the template name is invalid. With annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler; the creation modes and template recommendation are front-loaded, and the return-value note is appended efficiently. Slightly dense parenthetical, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value contract does not need elaboration, and the description correctly avoids over-explaining it. Both creation paths and the pointer to list_templates make it sufficient for a two-parameter create tool, with only the title parameter left implicit.

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 for two parameters. It explains the template parameter's purpose (seeding from a bundled template) and points to list_templates for valid values, but the required title parameter is never addressed and no format constraints are given. Partial compensation only.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ("Start a workflow") and immediately distinguishes the two creation modes: blank or seeded from a bundled template. It is specific about the outcome and mentions the returned workflow_id, though it does not explicitly name how it differs from sibling save_workflow or import_workflow.

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?

It states a clear recommendation ("seeded from a bundled template (recommended for current model families)") and routes the agent to the sibling tool list_templates for the template list. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison against save_workflow/import_workflow, which keeps it short of a 5.

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