create_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions optional parameters but omits key details like authentication requirements, whether it overwrites existing workflows, or the output format. The examples hint at usage but do not cover side effects or constraints.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a clear 'Args' structure. Examples aid understanding, but the text could be slightly more concise by trimming redundant phrasing like 'Optional list of...'.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no annotations, so completeness is moderately important. The description covers all parameters but lacks information about return values (even though an output schema exists), error handling, and behavioral guarantees. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, so the description adds essential meaning. It explains each parameter with examples and defaults (e.g., email_subject default). The step parameter structure is illustrated, compensating for the bare schema.

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 clearly states 'Create a new Vynn workflow.' The verb 'create' and resource 'workflow' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'run_workflow' or 'get_workflow' which perform different actions.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks context such as prerequisites or conditions that might make other tools more appropriate.

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