workflow_epic_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no idempotency, uniqueness constraints on epicId, side effects, or required permissions. The word 'fictional' hints this produces simulated/test data, which is the only behavioral signal present.

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?

A single short sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. There is no structure to hang additional detail on.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented required parameters, the description leaves the agent without enough information to call this mutation tool correctly or understand its result.

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?

Three required parameters exist with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning for epicId, title, or journeyId. Format expectations (e.g., length limits, ID conventions) are entirely undocumented.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'Epic workflow aggregate' are stated, but 'aggregate' is unexplained jargon and the description never says what an Epic aggregate contains or how it relates to siblings like workflow_epic_create_change_request. It is only barely distinguishable from other workflow_epic_* creation tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling workflow_epic_* tools, no prerequisites, and no mention of when it should not be used. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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