invariance_workflow_create

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

The description only echoes the obvious 'Create' action, which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It adds no behavioral details such as idempotency, validation rules, error behavior, or what happens on duplicate keys. Given this is a write operation, more transparency would be expected, but the description stays at surface level.

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 a single sentence that efficiently lists the relevant components without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource. While it could be more structured (e.g., mentioning required fields), it avoids fluff and is appropriately concise.

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 create operation with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but omits details like return value, error conditions, and requirement that 'key' and 'display_name' are mandatory. Given the tool has 7 parameters and some are JSON strings requiring format knowledge (which the schema partially covers), the description could be more thorough but is not severely lacking.

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 provides descriptions for four parameters (custom_metrics, expected_steps, expected_fields, allowed_outcomes) with JSON examples, covering 57% of parameters. The description reiterates these names but adds no additional semantic value. For the three parameters without schema descriptions (key, display_name, description), the description does not compensate, so it remains at a baseline 3.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'workflow definition', and enumerates the component types it handles (typed fields, expected steps, allowed outcomes, custom metrics). This distinguishes it from workflow_update/delete/list/get, though it does not explicitly name a differentiating sibling.

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 name and description imply this is for creating a new workflow definition, and the presence of update/delete/list siblings makes the use case fairly obvious. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this versus other workflow tools, nor any prerequisites such as required fields (key, display_name) or conditions for use.

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