Create workflow

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: additive write, no trigger activation, default settings object behavior, and return value characteristics ('returns the validated projection without pin/static values'). This goes beyond the annotations (which only indicate not read-only, open world possibility, etc.), and there is no contradiction with annotations.

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 cover action, constraints, alternatives, permissions, and return value — dense and efficient. No redundant wording, and the most critical information (create, no triggers) appears first. 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?

Despite 8 parameters and nested structures, the description covers the essential operational context: additive creation, graph constraint, permission requirements, and return projection. With the rich input schema and an output schema available, the description adequately fills the contextual gaps, making the tool complete for agent decision-making.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual value by stating that 'nodes and connections must form one complete graph' and that optional fields are 'forwarded only when supplied,' clarifying the parameter relationships. It also notes 'omitting settings uses an empty object,' which is consistent with the schema default. While not deeply detailing every parameter, it provides meaningful contextual semantics beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool creates and persists a new workflow ('Create and persist one workflow'), specifying it is an 'additive write' and explicitly excludes trigger activation, which distinguishes it from update and activate siblings. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use n8n_workflows_update for an existing workflow and activate for triggers,' naming the exact alternative tools and providing a strong condition for when not to use this tool. It also states the required mode and permission ('Requires write or unsafe mode plus create permission'), giving clear usage guidance.

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