import_workflow

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the two input formats (UI vs. API) and the preferred method for large files. However, it does not explicitly state whether importing overwrites an existing workflow in the session or appends it. This minor omission prevents a perfect score.

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 two sentences with no superfluous words. It front-loads the main action ('Import an existing workflow into the session') and then efficiently details the methods and use cases. Every sentence is essential.

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 tool with three parameters (none required) and an output schema, the description covers the main usage scenarios and parameter options. The minor gap is the unexplained 'title' parameter, which could affect completeness in edge cases. Overall, it provides sufficient context for most agents.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by detailing the semantics of 'workflow_json' (accepts both UI and API formats) and 'name' (loads from workflow browser, preferred for large files). However, the 'title' parameter is left unexplained, which is a gap for one of three parameters.

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's purpose: importing an existing workflow into the session. It specifies two distinct methods (JSON via workflow_json or loading by name), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_workflow or list_workflows. The verb 'import' is specific and resource-focused.

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 when-to-use guidance: it explains the trade-offs between the two methods (JSON pasting vs. loading by name) and recommends the name-based approach for large files. It also mentions use cases (beautifying, diagnosing, porting) and references list_workflows as a complementary sibling.

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