organize_workflow

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explicitly stating that the tool MUTATES the session workflow in place and is idempotent. It also explains what the result contains (the applied block) and how to see the full reorganized graph, which is valuable context that the annotations do not provide.

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 compact but information-dense: two sentences carry purpose, sequencing, mutation semantics, idempotence, and output behavior. The key instruction is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the main operational requirements: when to call it, what it mutates, idempotence, what the result contains, and how to inspect the complete output. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to restate return values, and it gives the agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema coverage for workflow_id is 0%, and the description does not explain workflow_id explicitly. However, the repeated mention of 'session workflow' and 'workflow' implies that this ID selects the target workflow to be organized. For a single, self-describing identifier parameter, this is adequate but not fully explicit compensation.

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 clear verb and resource: it auto-layouts the workflow into pipeline stage bands, colored groups, human titles, highlights, and guidance notes. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being explicitly 'the finishing step' before save_workflow, rather than an inspection, validation, or save operation.

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 clear lifecycle guidance: run after wiring and before save_workflow. It also tells the agent that inspect_workflow or export_workflow_json can be used afterward to view the full result. It does not explicitly name alternatives for when not to use it, so it falls just short of a perfect dimension.

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