Workflows: seed

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

Beyond the annotations (which declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation), the description discloses the multi-step side effects (creates the workflow, adds steps, links them) and, crucially, non-idempotency: "running it twice makes two copies." It does not cover required permissions or failure behavior, but the non-idempotency note is real value annotations cannot express.

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 primary action is front-loaded and the second sentence delivers the important non-idempotency caveat. The long parenthetical format breakdown is dense but every clause carries information; there is no filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the input file format, the placeholder mechanism, and the duplication caveat. It could still say more about required permissions or error handling, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by outlining the file's internal structure (name, trigger/triggers, steps with key, action, parameters and on_success/on_failure) and reiterating how `var` fills {{KEY}} placeholders. This meaningfully clarifies what the `file` path must contain.

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 (Create) plus resource (a workflow and its steps) and the input source (a JSON file in the `workflows_export` format). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like workflows_create and workflows_export without needing their schemas.

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?

Usage is only implied through the mechanism described and the reference to the `workflows_export` format; the description never states when to prefer this over workflows_create or names an exclusion. An agent can infer it is for seeding from an export file, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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