validate_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, lowering the bar. The description adds behavioral context by stating it returns 'errors/warnings/fixes', which informs the agent about the output nature. No contradictions with annotations. It could mention lack of side effects or performance implications, but the annotations cover safety.

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 two sentences, extremely concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each word adds value: scope, aspects, expected return, and timing. No filler or redundant information.

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 a full schema (including output schema) and rich annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It covers what is validated, what is returned, and when to use. It does not mention the options parameter, but the schema fully documents that. A tiny gap is the lack of mention of profile choices, but this is a minor omission given schema completeness.

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 baseline 3 applies. The description's mention of 'connections, expressions' loosely aligns with the validateConnections and validateExpressions options, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the workflow parameter or options parameter. Schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specifies the tool's function as 'Full workflow validation', enumerating the validated aspects (structure, connections, expressions, AI tools). This specific scope distinguishes it from the sibling 'validate_node' tool, which validates individual nodes. The verb+resource+scope is precise and unambiguous.

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 states 'Essential before deploy', providing a clear contextual trigger for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'full workflow' framing implies a complementary role to node-level validation tools. The deployment context is strong enough to guide the agent.

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