Create Workflow

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

Annotations are minimal (non-readOnly, non-destructive), and the description adds behavior: creation returns a workflow ID that should be saved in CLAUDE.md. It also explains integration with cph_detect_workflow. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise, with a clear one-line summary followed by bullet-pointed parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 has three parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description fully covers creation workflow, usage hints, parameter details, and return value expectations. No gaps remain.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the tool description adds substantial meaning: examples for name, scope for description, and auto-detection purpose for git_branch_pattern. This compensates well for the schema gaps.

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 tool creates a workflow, a project container for tasks, blockers, and decisions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cph_workflow_list and cph_workflow_update by using a specific verb and resource.

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 advises creating one per feature branch, sprint, or meaningful engineering effort, giving clear context. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives beyond referencing cph_detect_workflow.

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