workflow_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does it well: schema-gate validation (structure + cron), persistence at version=1, owner trunk direct-edit rights, and decision-log audit on every save are all disclosed. It does not cover conflict behavior when the workflow name already exists.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the action and packs validation, versioning, ownership, and audit into compact clauses. There is no filler or tautological restatement.

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 complex creation tool with nested schema and no output schema, it covers key lifecycle behavior but omits response/return shape and conflict handling for a workflow name that doubles as the primary key. The rich schema partially compensates, but the description is not fully complete on its own.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3 and the description adds little parameter-level meaning. The added validation and audit context is more tool-level behavior than parameter clarification.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource ('新建 workflow 对象') and conveys create-specific semantics such as version=1 and owner trunk direct-edit rights. It stops short of explicitly differentiating this tool from siblings like workflow_update or workflow_node_add.

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 implies this tool is for creating a brand-new workflow, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to use it over workflow_update or how to handle an existing workflow name. No alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned.

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