Draft workflow

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

Annotations are all false, offering no safety cues, so the description carries the burden. It reveals that the operation creates a durable (persistent) version and enforces version checking, which are meaningful behavioral traits. It does not describe failure modes or side effects on existing versions, but the provided details exceed the bare minimum.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause earns its place. The versioning instruction is direct and actionable without any waste.

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 description covers purpose and precondition, but with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves gaps: no return value, no error handling, and no clarification of the optional 'document' parameter's role. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 valuable context beyond the schema by explaining the expectedVersion semantics ('Inspect first and pass its current version, or 0 only when no workflow exists'), which enriches the parameter's meaning. It does not elaborate on document or jobId, but the schema already describes them.

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 action ('Create'), the resource ('durable Documentary Journey or Transformation Montage workflow version'), and the versioning mechanism. It distinguishes from sibling tools like patch_workflow by emphasizing creation of a durable version with optimistic concurrency.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Inspect first and pass its current version, or 0 only when no workflow exists,' giving a clear precondition and conditional usage. It implies the use of inspect_workflow before drafting, though it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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