Build AI Workflow Board

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), and the description usefully adds that nothing is stored on GateOnAI's servers and that the board is embedded in a share link the user can open, clone, and re-share. This extra context justifies the readOnly annotation despite the "build" verb, though it doesn't address idempotency or what a repeat call yields.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core transformation and the resulting output. There is minor redundancy between "The user can open the link, clone the board into their own Workbench and share it" and the earlier "a share link that contains the board itself," but nothing is wasted enough to hurt.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description is essentially complete: it states the transformation, the return shape, the share-link behavior, and the privacy posture. It would be fully complete if it clarified how this differs from the template/pipeline siblings.

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 one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents `goal` including an example, so the description need not repeat it. The phrase "a goal described in plain language" adds only marginal framing over the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: turning a plain-language goal into a GateOnAI Workbench board, with clarifying detail about what is produced (steps plus a share link). It reads as clearly distinct from catalog/search siblings, but it never names or contrasts with the closest siblings like get_workflow_template or find_ai_pipeline, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"Use when the user wants a ready-made, visual AI workflow they can open and edit" gives an explicit, actionable condition for invocation. There is no statement of when NOT to use it and no named alternative to route to when the goal is, e.g., merely retrieving an existing template.

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