Expose Workflow

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat that. The description adds useful behavioral context: it creates an automation and an API endpoint trigger, and mentions custom routing and input validation. This goes beyond the annotation baseline, though it does not discuss side effects like overwriting or permission requirements.

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 three sentences long, starts with a one-sentence summary, and then provides concise elaboration. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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?

Given the tool has an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description adequately conveys the core behavior and use case. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., workflow must exist) or limitations, but these are not essential for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not provide param-specific details but hints at the purpose of route_name ('custom routing') and endpoint_schema ('input validation'). Since the schema itself fully documents each parameter, this is sufficient.

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 specific action: 'Expose a workflow as an API endpoint' and elaborates that it creates an automation and API endpoint trigger. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_workflow or trigger_automation, which execute workflows rather than making them externally callable.

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 context for when to use the tool: to enable workflows to be called via REST API endpoints with custom routing and input validation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it lacks the full exclusion criteria for a 5.

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