audit_workflow

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

The readOnlyHint already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it enumerates the reference types scanned, states the validation source (location data), and describes the shape of the result (valid, broken, suggested replacements). It does not mention size limits or performance cost on large workflows.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: purpose first, then scope of the scan, then the return shape. Nothing restates the tool name or wastes space.

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 no output schema and a single fully documented parameter, the description carries the return-value burden well by naming valid/broken classifications and replacement suggestions. It is essentially complete, only slightly short on edge-case behavior such as empty results.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents workflowId fully, including its UUID format and origin from list_workflows. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (audit a workflow for broken entity references) and details exactly what is scanned (actions, triggers, pipeline/stage/user/custom field/custom value IDs). That is far more specific than the sibling get_workflow or read_workflow_outline, though no sibling is named explicitly to force the distinction.

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 use case is implied by 'audit a workflow for broken entity references,' which tells the agent the trigger condition is suspected stale references. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of how this relates to siblings like get_workflow or read_workflow_outline.

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