Create workflow template

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's job is to add context. It does: OWNER-role authorization, the version-1 side effect, and an integrity constraint warning against fabricating a definition. Good added value without contradicting the 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?

Three short sentences, core action front-loaded, each one adding a distinct fact (scope, permission, publishing boundary, integrity rule). Zero 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?

Given the deeply nested, effectively undocumented 'definition' payload and no output schema, the description covers permissions and the publishing boundary but says almost nothing about how to construct the definition or what is returned. Adequate at the edges, thin where the tool is actually complex.

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 only 33% (farm_id is documented; definition and is_default are not), so the description carries the burden and largely fails. The one hint – 'never invent a definition the producer did not confirm' – is a content-integrity caution, not an explanation of the required nested definition payload or the is_default flag.

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 ('Create a farm-owned workflow template'), plus the notable scope detail that it also creates version 1. It draws an explicit boundary against publish_workflow_template_version by stating publishing is a separate operation, so an agent can place it among its siblings immediately.

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?

States a hard prerequisite ('Requires the OWNER role') and clarifies that publishing is not part of this call, which routes the agent to the right sibling. No explicit when-not-to-use cases beyond that boundary, so it falls short of a 5.

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