workflow.advance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that invalid jumps fail closed and that the durable history records the transition, which are important behavioral traits. It doesn't mention side effects like whether the transition is reversible or what happens to open decisions, but the core failure semantics are disclosed.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The core constraint (only advance after a phase boundary) is front-loaded, and the failure semantics are stated compactly. 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?

The tool has six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the transition semantics but doesn't clarify what the 'event' values mean, how 'open_decisions' interacts with the fail-closed behavior, or what a successful response looks like. For a state-advancing tool, this is adequate but leaves gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain any of the six parameters, but the schema itself has descriptive enums (event names, session_span, route_clarity) and required fields. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so a baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's self-explanatory enums.

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 a specific verb ('advance') and resource ('guided-development state'), and clarifies that advancement is only valid after a skill reaches an explicit phase boundary. It distinguishes itself from workflow.start/list/update/guide by focusing on state transitions, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: only after the recommended skill has reached an explicit phase boundary, and never to skip unresolved decisions. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide when to call it.

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