validate_business_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint; the description adds 'local and fail-closed' behavior beyond those annotations, which is material context. It also lists what gets checked (order, approval gates, RBAC, recovery, etc.), giving the agent a clear behavioral contract without contradicting 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and timing, the second packs the validation criteria into a scannable list. Every sentence earns its place, and it doesn't repeat what the schema or annotations already convey.

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 one-parameter validation tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, behavior, and input source. Return semantics are presumably handled by the output schema, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It identifies the single parameter as a 'compiled business workflow' and clarifies the input must already be compiled, which is meaningful given the sibling compile_business_workflow. It doesn't specify the exact serialization format, but one self-descriptive parameter keeps this gap minor.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Validate a compiled business workflow') and scopes the action to 'before publish or execution,' distinguishing it from compile, simulate, run, and trigger siblings. The second sentence enumerates concrete validation dimensions, leaving no doubt about what the tool does.

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 phrase 'before publish or execution' gives clear temporal context for when to invoke validation. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions relative to simulate_business_workflow or run_workflow, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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