validate_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, ensuring safe operation. The description adds behavior like live validation and closest-match suggestions, which go beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, key information front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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's complexity (multiple validation checks), annotations (safe ops), output schema (exists), and single parameter, the description is fairly complete. It lists checks and hints at suggestions, but might lack detail on exact response format, which output schema likely covers.

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 only one parameter (workflow_id) and 0% schema description coverage, the description implicitly defines it as the target workflow for validation. The name is self-explanatory, and the description's focus on 'against the LIVE instance' provides sufficient context. Baseline for single param with no schema description is 4.

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 validates a workflow against the live instance, listing specific checks (node classes, widget values, combo/model-file values, required inputs). It distinguishes from siblings like run_workflow (execution) and lint_workflow (likely static), making the 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 implies usage before run_workflow with 'Fix errors before run_workflow'. It provides context for when to use but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, though the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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