Respond To A Workflow Instance (Project)

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

Annotations are present (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds that the tool creates a new object and returns HTTP 201, which aligns with the non-read-only annotation. However, it does not disclose side effects like advancing the workflow or potential errors, and the phrase 'Creates a new Workflows' is vague about what exactly is created.

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 relatively concise: two sentences, a list of required parameters, and API details. It front-loads the core purpose. The list of parameters is useful but could be integrated more naturally. Overall, it is well-structured and avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose, required parameters, endpoint, and success response. However, it lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., that a workflow instance must be in a respondable state) and does not describe the structure of the created object. The annotations partially compensate, but the description could be more complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists required parameter names but does not provide additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already describes. For example, it does not explain the relationship between 'current_step_occurrence_id' and 'selected_response_option_id' or how attachments are handled.

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: 'Respond to a Workflow Instance (Project)' and specifies it creates a new object. The inclusion of the endpoint and mention of HTTP 201 reinforces the purpose. However, the phrasing 'Creates a new Workflows' is slightly ambiguous (should be 'creates a new workflow response'), and sibling differentiation is only implicit via the title and required parameters.

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 lists required parameters and states 'Use this to perform the respond to action on Workflows,' which implies the context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish when to use this project-level tool versus its company-level sibling (respond_to_a_workflow_instance_company) or any other alternative. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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