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. It does disclose that creation also triggers execution ("and run"), but says nothing about permissions required, whether execution is asynchronous, idempotency, failure/rollback behavior, or resource consumption — significant gaps for a mutation that starts jobs.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is good structurally. But the brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness for a tool with deeply nested required parameters.

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?

The tool takes nested objects (jobs with config, input dependencies, worker names/versions, plus metadata) and has no output schema to fall back on. Against that complexity, the description supplies no guidance on constructing the workflow graph or what happens after execution starts, so it is not complete enough.

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 100%, so the nested jobs and metadata structures are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no further meaning about the required job aliases, dependency wiring via input, or label syntax beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ("Create and run a new workflow"), so an agent knows this produces a workflow and kicks off execution. However it offers no differentiation from siblings such as update_workflow, start_training_workflow, or start_generation_workflow, which also create-and-run workloads.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description never explains how this differs from start_training_workflow or start_generation_workflow, which appear to be specialized variants of the same operation, leaving the agent to guess which entry point to pick.

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