workflowy_create_single_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only mentions deprecation status and alternative, but doesn't describe what the tool actually does behaviorally (creates a node? what happens on success/failure? what permissions are needed?). For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 maximally concise - a single sentence that communicates the essential information (deprecation status and alternative). There is zero wasted text, and the most critical information (that this tool should not be used) is front-loaded. This is an excellent example of efficient communication.

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 that this is a deprecated tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema, the description is incomplete. While it correctly warns about deprecation, it doesn't explain what the tool does, what the parameters mean, or provide any context for understanding the tool's behavior. The existence of an output schema doesn't compensate for the complete lack of functional explanation.

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%, meaning none of the 3 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides absolutely no information about what the parameters mean, their purpose, or how they should be used. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 the tool is deprecated and provides an alternative, but does not explain what the tool actually does. It's not a tautology (doesn't just restate the name), but it's misleading because it focuses entirely on deprecation rather than functionality. The name suggests it creates a single node in WorkFlowy, but the description doesn't confirm or clarify this purpose.

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 explicit and clear usage guidance: 'DEPRECATED: Use workflowy_etch (ETCH) instead.' This directly tells the agent when NOT to use this tool and provides a specific alternative. This is exactly what strong usage guidelines should do - prevent misuse by directing to the correct tool.

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