workflow_submit

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits beyond 'submit'. It doesn't mention side effects (e.g., triggers approval, modifies state), required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects from this minimal text.

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 a compact bullet-like list following a clear header. It wastes no words and is easy to scan. However, it could be slightly more concise by avoiding repetition of parameter names in both the schema and the list. Overall, it's well-structured for a parameter list.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns, what happens after submission (e.g., workflow created, pending audit), and any required conditions. It lacks all of this, making it incomplete for an agent to understand the full impact of the submission.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides brief Chinese comments for each parameter (e.g., '目标实例 ID' for instance_id). This adds some meaning beyond the schema's type and title, but the comments are terse and essentially repeat the property names. The agent gets basic clarification but not deep semantics like expected formats or constraints.

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 the tool's purpose: '提交 SQL 上线工单' (submit SQL deployment ticket). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the tool name 'workflow_submit' aligns. Among siblings like workflow_audit and workflow_execute, this tool's role is distinct.

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 lists parameters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., workflow_execute, workflow_audit). There is no mention of prerequisites, workflows, or context that would help an agent make appropriate choices.

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