Assemble a three-layer FDE workflow into a deployments YAML file, ready for human-gated activation via workflow submission.
FDE workflow 组装部署（引擎六）——三层交付物 → deployments/.yml（与 fde_compose 同格式）；只产出工件不代激活——激活走 workflow_submit + activate_workflow（人审闸门保留）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodes | Yes | 组装节点（与 fde_interview 同构） | |
| enterprise_id | Yes | 🔴 企业标识 | |
| workflow_name | Yes | 🔴 工作流名称（yml 文件名） | |
| workflow_description | No | 工作流描述 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses a key behavior: only produces an artifact, does not activate, and retains human review for activation. It also mentions format compatibility with fde_compose. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like overwriting existing files, idempotency, or prerequisites. It lacks a complete behavioral profile.
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?
One concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then provides essential boundaries (artifact only, activation path). Every phrase adds value with no fluff. The structure is efficient and well-organized.
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 tool has 4 parameters, 3 required, with a nested nodes structure, and no output schema. The description states the output file path and format compatibility with fde_compose, which helps. However, it doesn't explain the expected return value, error conditions, or the meaning of '三层交付物' in relation to the nodes parameter. It is adequate for an agent familiar with the FDE domain but has gaps for a general agent.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. It mentions '三层交付物' but does not map it to the nodes parameter or explain how parameters influence the output. No compensation for the schema's already clear descriptions.
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?
Description states a specific action: 'FDE workflow 组装部署' (assembly deployment of FDE workflow), and specifies the deliverable as deployments/<name>.yml, with the same format as fde_compose. It also distinguishes from activation tools by stating it only produces artifacts, not activation. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like workflow_submit and activate_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 activation goes through workflow_submit + activate_workflow, telling the agent when not to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with fde_compose, only mentions format similarity. It gives clear context for the activation boundary but lacks a direct 'use this instead of X when...' statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.