workflowy_etch_async

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the asynchronous nature and job_id return for polling, which is valuable. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like required permissions, rate limits, error handling, what 'ETCH' specifically entails, or whether the operation is destructive (though 'node creation' suggests additive).

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 single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key behavioral aspect (async with job_id). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 an async creation tool with 4 parameters (0% documented) and no annotations, the description is incomplete. While it correctly indicates the output will be a job_id (aligned with having an output schema), it lacks parameter explanations, permission requirements, and detailed behavioral context. The presence of an output schema reduces but doesn't eliminate the need for more completeness.

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 for 4 parameters, the description provides no information about parameters beyond what's implied by 'Workflowy node creation'. It doesn't explain what 'parent_id', 'nodes', 'replace_all', or 'nodes_file' mean, their relationships, or how they affect the ETCH job. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 clearly states the action ('Start an async ETCH job') and resource ('Workflowy node creation'), with 'async' and 'return a job_id for status polling' providing important context. It distinguishes from immediate creation tools like 'workflowy_create_single_node' by emphasizing the asynchronous nature and job tracking, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage when asynchronous node creation with status polling is needed, rather than immediate creation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'workflowy_etch' (synchronous version) or 'workflowy_create_single_node', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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