Create AMC workflow (SQL)

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the nature of AMC SQL (clean-room event tables) and constraints (aggregation thresholds, rejection of user-level data). This goes beyond what annotations provide, giving agents a clearer picture of what the tool does and its limitations.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, and the second adds a critical constraint. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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 and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose and key constraints. However, it lacks information about the return value, error scenarios, or the lifecycle (e.g., that saving does not execute the workflow). The openWorldHint annotation suggests more side effects may exist, which the description does not address.

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 coverage is 80% (4 of 5 parameters described), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it only provides general context about the sqlQuery parameter. While helpful, it does not significantly enhance understanding of individual parameters.

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 action ('Save an AMC SQL workflow') and identifies the resource ('on an instance'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like amc_execute_workflow (which runs workflows) and amc_list_workflows (which lists them) by focusing on creation. The context about AMC SQL and aggregation thresholds further clarifies the tool's domain.

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 provides some guidance by noting that aggregation thresholds apply and that user-level queries are rejected, which helps agents understand constraints. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., amc_execute_workflow for execution). There is no mention of prerequisites or 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.