Create workflow

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the created workflow is not usable until steps and transitions are added, and it returns an id. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, so not a 5.

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 labeled blocks, purpose first, no filler sentences. The bold headers add a little markup overhead but each section carries distinct information.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the creation scope, the mandatory follow-up calls, and the returned id — everything an agent needs to sequence the workflow-building flow correctly.

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 only 40% across 5 parameters, and the description supplies no parameter-level meaning at all — name, enabled, description and allowReentry are never explained, leaving half the inputs undocumented in both places. The required 'eventName' trigger concept appears in the title sentence but is still anemic given the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a workflow with its trigger') and immediately scopes the outcome ('Steps and transitions are added afterwards'), which distinguishes it from plunk_add_workflow_step and plunk_add_workflow_transition without opening any 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?

Explicit 'Not for' and 'Use when' sections, plus a named alternative flow (add steps, connect them, then enable). The agent knows both when to call this and when it is insufficient on its own.

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