Validate workflow

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

Annotations are all false, providing minimal safety profile. The description adds context that the tool does not render or publish, but does not disclose whether compilation has side effects, what it returns, or prerequisites. It is not misleading but incomplete regarding behavioral consequences.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys purpose and exclusions.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient information for selection and invocation. It clearly states what the tool does and does not do, but could mention expected return values or success/failure behavior to be 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 description coverage is only 50% (jobId has a description, expectedVersion does not). The description only hints at 'inspected workflow version' but does not map parameters to roles or explain expectedVersion's meaning or relationship to jobId. It does not compensate for the low 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 states the tool's function: validate and compile the inspected workflow version, with explicit exclusions (without rendering or publishing). This distinguishes it from siblings like preview_workflow and publish_job, which perform rendering and publishing.

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 implies usage context: when you need validation/compilation without rendering or publishing. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as 'use preview_workflow for rendering'. The context is clear but lacks explicit alternatives.

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