create_workflow

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

Annotations already indicate mutation and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the return value ('workflow_id + node summary') but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or other behavioral nuances. Value added is minimal beyond annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the action, then succinctly covers options and output. No wasted words.

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 tool has only two parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the main intent and references list_templates for further context. It does not mention uniqueness constraints or error conditions, but these are secondary.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the template parameter (blank vs seeded) but does not describe the title parameter beyond its name. Partial coverage leaves some meaning for agents to infer.

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 'start' and resource 'workflow', explains the two modes (blank or from template), and distinguishes from siblings like import_workflow. It also mentions the return value, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 recommends using a template and points to list_templates for available options, guiding usage. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases where import or edit would be preferable, leaving some guidance implicit.

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