melra_workflow_planValidate, preflight, encrypt, and persist a bounded workflow without executing it. Check nodes, budgets, safeguards, and dependencies before runtime.
Validate, preflight, encrypt, and persist a bounded workflow without executing it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| definition | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description states the tool 'encrypt[s], and persist[s]' a workflow, which is a write to the plan store and therefore modifies its environment; idempotentHint=false reinforces that each call creates state. This is a direct contradiction of the read-only annotation in the dangerous direction (an agent may call it believing there are no side effects).
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 front-loaded sentence enumerating the pipeline stages with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than concise given the tool's complexity.
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?
For a tool whose schema spans many node kinds, budgets, evidence predicates and reconciliation rules, one sentence omits what preflight actually checks, what a denial looks like, what the persisted plan's identity/return is, and how the artifact feeds melra_execute/melra_workflow_advance. No output schema exists to fill those gaps.
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?
There is a single required 'definition' parameter with 0% schema description coverage at the top level, and the description says nothing about what a valid definition must contain (required schemaVersion/id/version/name/nodes, allowed node types, forbiddenEffects/requiredEvidence rules). The enormous nested schema carries all the meaning, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names four concrete operations (validate, preflight, encrypt, persist) on a specific resource (a bounded workflow), which is far more informative than the title alone. The clause 'without executing it' distinguishes it from melra_execute and melra_workflow_advance, though no sibling is named explicitly and 'bounded workflow' is never defined.
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 'without executing it' clause implies when the tool is appropriate (before execution) versus melra_execute, but no alternative is named and no prerequisites are stated — e.g. whether a plan must exist before melra_workflow_advance or melra_workflow_control. Usage is implied rather than specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.