workflow_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so thoroughly: it discloses the three fail-closed validation gates, SHA-256 integrity checking, conflict rejection, cross-enterprise package rejection for private/result-only nodes, and side effects such as lineage backflow and ontology merging. This is far beyond the minimum.

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 information-dense and front-loads the core purpose before the validation flow. It could be improved with bullet points or separation of 'when to use' from 'behavior', and the G1/G6 codes assume internal knowledge, but there is no wasted prose.

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 import tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers validation, security restrictions, conflict behavior, and side effects, which is strong. It does not describe the success return payload or explicit prerequisites beyond what the schema's owner parameter implies, but the agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The prose adds general validation context but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema descriptions already provide.

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 'workflow 模板导入' and specifies a precise resource (workflow templates) and action (import), then gives a concrete validation pipeline. It also ties the input bundle to workflow_export in the schema, which distinguishes it from creation/update siblings.

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 intended use—importing an exported workflow bundle—is implied by the input schema and the phrase 'workflow 模板导入', so an agent can infer a use case. However, it never states when to prefer it over alternatives like workflow_create/workflow_update, nor does it list exclusions beyond conflict rejection.

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