Create Workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it handles this well. It explicitly states that no workflow ever runs anything and that nothing is persisted beyond the host's store, giving an agent useful side-effect expectations.

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 short and front-loaded: first sentence establishes the core purpose and return value; second sentence adds two valuable behavioral constraints. Every sentence 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?

For a simple two-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the returned workflow_id, the created object's initial state, and the absence of side effects.

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%, and both parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds some useful context about the returned workflow_id but does not materially extend the meaning of either name or optional workflow_id.

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: "Start a new, empty workflow draft" and names the return value, workflow_id. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by signaling that this is the entry point, since "every other tool takes that id."

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 communicates when to use it: first, to obtain the workflow_id that other tools consume. It does not explicitly contrast it with import_workflow or other creation-like alternatives, so it misses the explicit when-not guidance needed for a 5.

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