ddflow_workflow_pipeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses that the tool WRITES to project config, validates gate definitions before writing, refuses with a near-miss error when a gate is undefined, and explains the downstream consequences (undefined gates block every item and cannot be recorded or skipped). The need to ask the operator is also explicitly stated.

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 front-loaded with the core action and write effect, then gives precise validation and operator-consent guidance in compact paragraphs. Every sentence contributes either a rule, a rationale, or an action, with no filler.

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 3-parameter config-writing tool with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisites, the validation failure mode, the human-consent requirement, and the dry-run escape hatch. No critical information an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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?

The schema already covers all three parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by explaining that `gates` must reference already-defined gates and that `dry_run` is the preview path for getting operator approval. It does not restate the schema descriptions, which keeps this dimension above baseline.

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: 'Set the ordered list of gates a task or a phase must pass,' immediately clarifying this is a config-writing operation. It also distinguishes itself from related gate tools by naming `ddflow_workflow_gate` as the prerequisite for defining gates before a pipeline is set.

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 gives explicit operating instructions: define gates first with `ddflow_workflow_gate`, ask the operator before changing a pipeline, and use dry_run to preview changes. It also explains why these precautions matter, so an agent knows when to pause and when to proceed.

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