runrunit_create_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that creating a workflow 'starts tracking eligibility' and states prerequisite conditions. However, it does not describe the return value, failure modes, or whether any existing task state changes beyond workflow creation.

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 crisp sentences with no wasted words. The core action and its effect come first, followed by the eligibility restrictions. Every part serves a clear purpose.

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 single-parameter create tool, the description covers the action, the effect, and the required preconditions. The absence of an output schema means return-value behavior is not explained, which is a minor gap, but the description is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%: the only parameter, task_id, has a description 'Task ID'. The tool description adds contextual meaning by linking task_id to the eligibility constraints, but does not provide additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already includes.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a workflow for a task'. The parenthetical '(starts tracking eligibility)' adds a meaningful effect that helps distinguish this from generic create tools and from sibling tools like runrunit_create_task.

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 gives explicit eligibility constraints: 'Task must not be closed, ongoing, or already have a workflow.' This clearly indicates when the tool can be used. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other cases, but the constraints provide enough guidance for the agent to decide.

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