Workflows: export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with an explicit 'check with the user before running it' warning. Beyond annotations, it discloses the return shape (triggers, steps with parameters, linked via on_success/on_failure, no ids, round-trippable with seed), which is genuinely useful behavioral context.

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 the core action and the routing alternative front-loaded, followed by the caution. No filler or redundancy.

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, the description compensates by describing the returned JSON structure and its linking model. Combined with the schema and annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke the tool and interpret its result.

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%, so both `id` and `output` are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a marginal note that the exported payload carries no ids; otherwise it does not extend parameter meaning, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (export) and resource (existing workflow) plus the output format (JSON). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `workflows_get` and by implication `workflows_seed`, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete use cases (back up or copy a workflow) and names the alternative (`workflows_get`) with the condition that selects it (need the ids the step tools require). It also adds a pre-run caution to check with the user.

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