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), non-idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds the NOW_ASSIST_ENABLED and WRITE_ENABLED requirements, which are useful environmental constraints not in annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects of creation (e.g., whether the workflow is immediately active, or if any related resources are changed) beyond the basic creation itself.

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 front-loads the primary action ('Create an agentic workflow linked to an AI agent') and appends the requirement in parentheses. It is concise, clear, and contains no fluff.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the response contains (e.g., the created workflow's sys_id), but it does not. The tool creates a potentially complex structure (steps array) without explaining how the workflow will be used or what happens after creation. The description is too sparse for a creation tool with these parameters and no schema-defined return.

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% for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter relationships (e.g., how steps relate to the agent, or that agent_sys_id must reference an existing agent). The schema descriptions are minimal, but coverage is complete, so a baseline score is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('agentic workflow linked to an AI agent'), clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_ai_agent' (creates the agent itself) and 'create_flow' (regular flow) by specifying the workflow is agentic and linked to an AI agent.

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 explicitly states prerequisites: 'requires NOW_ASSIST_ENABLED + WRITE_ENABLED', which provides clear conditions for when to use the tool. It also implies the need for an existing AI agent (since the workflow is 'linked to an AI agent'), but it does not mention alternatives like 'create_flow' for non-agentic workflows. Thus it gives clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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