organize_workflow

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description discloses that it mutates the session workflow in place, is idempotent, and summarizes changes in the 'applied' block. It adds context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 paragraphs with front-loaded key information starting with 'THE finishing step.' Each sentence provides value, though a minor trim could be possible. It balances detail and brevity well.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, actions, and result summary. It guides the agent to inspect_workflow for full details. Lacks edge cases or error conditions, but overall sufficient for correct use.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description does not explain the 'workflow_id' parameter. However, the single required parameter is self-explanatory from the tool name and context. The description adds no parameter-specific details, missing an opportunity to clarify format or constraints.

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 performs auto-layout into pipeline stage bands, colored groups, etc., and positions it as 'THE finishing step.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like save_workflow or inspect_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?

The description explicitly says to run after wiring is done and before save_workflow, and notes it is idempotent. This provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or list 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.