create_workflow

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

Beyond the simple readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description adds meaningful run semantics: actions execute in order when any trigger matches, and it discloses cross-field validation constraints (remote OCR requires consumption-started trigger; apply-AI-suggestions cannot use only consumption-started triggers). This is substantial behavioral context for a write operation.

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?

Four sentences deliver the core purpose, execution semantics, a concrete example, and critical validation constraints with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description plus rich input schema covers creation semantics, trigger/action object shapes, example usage, and hard validation rules. It could be slightly more complete by stating the return shape or explicitly contrasting with the single-trigger/action creation tools, but overall it is strongly sufficient.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema with a concrete example mapping trigger and action types to a real scenario, and by clarifying that triggers/actions use the same full object shapes as the sibling create_workflow_trigger/create_workflow_action tools.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a complete workflow — the automation Paperless actually runs — with its triggers and actions in one call.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_workflow_trigger and create_workflow_action by emphasizing it creates the full runnable workflow rather than a component.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you want a complete workflow with triggers and actions in one call. It also references create_workflow_trigger and create_workflow_action as the sources for the full object shape, which helps an agent route correctly, though it does not explicitly state when to prefer those separate tools instead.

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