organize_workflow

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

With annotations only declaring readOnly=false/destructive=false/openWorld=false, the description adds substantive context: it MUTATES the session workflow in place, is idempotent, and returns an `applied` summary. The 'replaces a hand-made layout' clause also tells the agent existing layout is overwritten, which is exactly the kind of side-effect detail annotations don't convey. No contradiction with destructiveHint=false, since the mutation is idempotent re-layout, not data loss.

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?

Front-loaded with 'THE finishing step' and the core action, then sequencing, then behavioral caveats — good ordering. It is dense but nearly every clause (idempotent, MUTATES, applied) carries decision-relevant information; the parenthetical about two registers is the one mildly expendable flourish.

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 mutating layout tool with an output schema, the description covers sequencing, mutation semantics, idempotency, and layout-mode meaning, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. The only gap is the absence of workflow_id semantics, minor given the required-parameter name is self-explanatory.

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 carries the burden: it explains layout='panel' concretely (Controls | Pipeline | Unconnected) and implies 'pipeline' via 'pipeline stage bands'. However, it never explains what layout='pipeline' does differently in terms of grouping, and workflow_id is left entirely undefined. Partial compensation for a fully undocumented schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('auto-layout into pipeline stage bands, colored groups, human titles...') rather than restating the name, and explicitly positions itself against siblings: 'Run after wiring, before save_workflow; replaces a hand-made layout.' An agent can distinguish it from edit_workflow, save_workflow, and lint_workflow without opening a schema.

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 gives a clear sequencing rule ('after wiring, before save_workflow') and states the alternative it supersedes ('replaces a hand-made layout'), which is strong routing guidance. It lacks an explicit when-not/exclusion, but the ordering plus idempotency claim covers most selection needs.

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