test_credential

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden and does disclose an important side effect: a temporary workflow is created, and the operation is heavy. It stops short of describing cleanup, permissions, or whether the workflow persists, but the key behavior is revealed.

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?

One compact sentence communicates the action, the mechanism, and a cost warning with no filler. The warning is placed at the end as an appositive, keeping the core purpose front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, side effect, and cost. With no output schema, a little more context about the result format (e.g., boolean, thrown error) would make it fully complete, but nothing essential for invoking it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter has a clear description ('Credential ID to test'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the operation ('Test credential validity') and its mechanism ('creating a temporary workflow'), so the purpose is specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from related siblings like validate_workflow_credentials or get_credential_schema.

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 'heavy operation - use sparingly' note gives clear practical guidance and warns against overuse. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, which prevents a 5.

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