validateWorkflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description reinforces this ('It changes nothing') and adds the useful behavioral fact that the return is a list of publish blockers. It doesn't elaborate on partial-failure or draft-state handling, but the annotation bar is low.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the side-effect guarantee, then the workflow step. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description adequately signals the return (what blocks publish). Combined with read-only annotations and a single fully-documented parameter, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the relationship to testWorkflow is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so workflow_id is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. whether an unsaved draft id is acceptable), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Check the draft and list what blocks publish.' It states the scope (draft) and outcome (blocker list), and explicitly routes away from the sibling publishWorkflow. An agent can distinguish it from publishWorkflow without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing: call after edits, fix every error before publishWorkflow. That's clear context and names the related alternative. It stops short of covering when not to use it or how it relates to the other workflow-validation-adjacent sibling testWorkflow.

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