create_agentic_workflow

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the prerequisite flags (NOW_ASSIST_ENABLED, WRITE_ENABLED), which is useful context. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the workflow is immediately active, if it triggers any side effects, or how to handle errors. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and a key requirement. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description mentions important prerequisites, but given the tool has 5 parameters including a nested array (steps), and no output schema exists, the description should ideally indicate what the tool returns (e.g., the created workflow's sys_id). Without this, the agent may lack guidance on how to use the output. However, the schema descriptions partially compensate.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any further explanation of parameters beyond the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 purpose: 'Create an agentic workflow linked to an AI agent'. It uses a specific verb-resource combination ('Create an agentic workflow') and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_flow or create_subflow by specifying 'agentic' and 'linked to an AI agent'. It also mentions required privileges, further clarifying its scope.

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 usage context by stating the required privileges ('requires NOW_ASSIST_ENABLED + WRITE_ENABLED'), which hints at when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like create_flow or create_ai_agent, leaving the 'when to use vs when not to use' somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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