write_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral details itself. It communicates that the operation creates or edits a workflow but does not explain whether existing workflows are overwritten, how previous_source_path affects behavior, or what side effects or authorization are required.

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 single sentence is brief and free of filler, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It mostly restates the tool's implied meaning without adding useful structured information.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the description is too thin for a write/edit tool with three parameters and a workflow-specific domain. It omits parameter semantics, the workflow format implied by raw, and the difference between creating and editing.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters: slug, raw, or previous_source_path. An agent is left with no meaningful guidance about what values these parameters expect.

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 action 'Cree ou edite' ('creates or edits') with the resource 'a workflow', so an agent can identify the basic purpose. It distinguishes the tool from list/delete/apply workflow operations, though it does not clarify what a workflow consists of.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus apply_workflow or the workflow management siblings. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool appropriately.

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