workflow_submit

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds that it's a transactional runner, previews unless confirmed, steps validated per-command, and constraints like one approval. No contradiction 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?

Single sentence is concise but dense, packing multiple ideas. Could benefit from clearer structure or bullet points for readability.

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 no output schema and complex nested input, the description covers key behavioral aspects but lacks details on return values, error handling, or comprehensive parameter behavior. Adequate but not 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 coverage is 100%, so description need not elaborate on parameters. It does add that the 'yes' flag switches from preview to apply, and steps are validated like command_run, but doesn't detail other parameters beyond what schema provides.

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 submits an inline multi-step workflow, distinguishing it from single-command tools like command_run. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings beyond mentioning steps are validated like command_run.

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?

Provides some usage context: 'previews unless yes' indicates when to use the yes flag, and mentions approval and journal run id. But lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like command_run or search.

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