create_workflow_version

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions version auto-increment but omits other behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, permission requirements, side effects on existing versions, or return value (e.g., does it return the created version?). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences for purpose plus a structured Args block. No redundant information; every part earns its place.

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 description covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks important context such as return value (what does the tool output?), error conditions (e.g., when workflow_id does not exist), and prerequisites. Given the simple interface (2 params, no output schema), it is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'workflow_id: The workflow UUID' and 'definition_uri: URI to the workflow definition file'. This adds meaningful context beyond property names, though could be slightly more specific (e.g., URI format).

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 'Create a new version for a workflow' with the specific verb 'create' and resource 'workflow version'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_workflow' and 'create_workflow_deployment' by focusing on versioning and noting auto-increment.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_workflow_version, list_workflow_versions). Does not mention prerequisites like the workflow must exist, or when to prefer this over other creation tools.

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