whodb_platform_workflow_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the fact that a durable plan artifact is persisted and later applied, which annotations alone do not convey. Mild tension between 'persist' and readOnlyHint is resolved by the explicit 'without executing writes' clause.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the non-execution guarantee that separates this from an apply tool. The closing workspace sentence is partly redundant with the schema description, costing a point.

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 an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description only needs to supply purpose, routing and the dry-run contract, all of which it does. It does not explain step dependency or retry semantics, though the step schema covers ids and depends_on.

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% and the nested step/workspace fields are already richly documented, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds a little on workspace targeting ('per-call targeting without changing defaults') but largely restates the schema's own wording.

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 specific verbs (validate and persist) plus the resource (multi-step hosted WhoDB workflow) and the key boundary of non-execution. It contrasts implicitly with the executing sibling via 'without executing writes', but never names whodb_platform_workflow_apply explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('end-to-end goals such as source to dataset to transform to app') that tells the agent when this tool is the right entry point. No explicit when-not or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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