import_workflow

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

The description is a minimal one-liner and does not disclose behavioral details beyond what the annotation already indicates. The annotation readOnlyHint=false signals a write operation, and 'Import' aligns with that. However, the description does not mention whether import creates a new workflow, overwrites an existing one, or what side effects might occur (e.g., validation failures). The agent is left without crucial operational context.

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 a single, focused sentence that is immediately clear and front-loaded. It contains no unnecessary words or fluff, making it highly concise for the information it conveys.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain return values, but it does not. It also fails to clarify the operational semantics—specifically whether import creates a new workflow or updates an existing one. This is a notable gap for a write operation, even with two simple parameters. The description is too sparse to fully inform an agent in a complex tool ecosystem.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter semantics; it only references the JSON string source, which is already detailed in the workflowJson schema. The activate parameter is not mentioned, and the description adds no value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool's action ('Import'), the resource ('a workflow'), and the specific input source ('a JSON string definition'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_workflow, which likely builds workflows from individual fields, and export_workflow, which does the opposite. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. It does not mention that import is specifically for restoring from JSON or when a user has a complete workflow definition. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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