Workflows: step add

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no word on ordering/start-step semantics, key uniqueness, idempotency, or whether the addition takes effect immediately.

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 short sentence, zero waste and fully front-loaded. It is appropriately terse, though the terseness borders on under-specification at only four words.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the essentials are technically present across the structured fields. Still, a step-ordering concept like 'start' and the key-uniqueness contract are behavioral details an agent would benefit from seeing called out in prose.

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 every parameter — including key, name, start, action, params, enabled — is already documented in the schema with useful detail. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Add a step to a workflow'), making the operation immediately identifiable. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from closely related siblings such as workflows_step_update, workflows_step_link, workflows_step_get, or workflows_integration_add.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus updating, linking, or deleting a step, nor on prerequisites (a workflow must already exist, a step key must be unique). The only routing hint in the whole definition lives in the schema's 'action' field description, not the description itself.

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