Workflows: file handler add

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). Beyond that, the description adds nothing: it does not say this mutates workflow state, which params are conditionally required per operation (source_url for fetch_and_link, existing_file_id for link_existing), or anything about idempotency.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though the missing depth is penalized under other dimensions rather than here.

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 100% schema coverage the parameters are discoverable, but for an 18-param, operation-driven mutation step with no output schema the description says nothing about operation-conditional requirements, step ordering within a workflow, or what is returned. Adequate but clearly incomplete.

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% across all 18 parameters, so the schema carries the load and baseline 3 applies. The only description-side addition is the "named flags" phrasing, indicating flat named arguments rather than a JSON blob.

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 and resource ("Add a FileHandler step") and implies the parent workflow context, so it is distinguishable from the generic workflows_step_add. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with that sibling, so not a 5.

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 parenthetical "no hand-written params JSON" hints this is the preferred path over raw params JSON, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of when to prefer workflows_step_add, and no guidance on choosing among the three FileHandler operations.

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