Create Approval Workflow

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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint=false and a title, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It says nothing about whether existing workflows are affected, conditional requirements (e.g. trigger_value needed only for folder_path/template_id), permission needs, or what happens on success. The two sentences merely restate values already present in the schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action before the field enumerations. It is compact and easy to scan, though the second sentence is largely redundant with schema-documented enum values.

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?

There is no output schema, six parameters at full schema coverage, and only a minimal annotation set. The description is adequate for identifying the tool but leaves real gaps for a create-mutation call: conditional parameter requirements (trigger_value), approver ordering semantics under each mode, and any post-creation behavior.

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 and the schema already documents name, mode, trigger, approvers, description, and trigger_value. The description repeats the trigger and mode value sets but adds no conditional logic, e.g. which trigger types require trigger_value or how approver 'order' interacts with sequential vs concurrent mode.

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 and resource ("Create a new approval workflow"), making it distinguishable from update/get/delete/list approval-workflow siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with destructive-sounding or overlapping siblings like submit_for_approval, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 never says when to use this tool versus update_approval_workflow, list_approval_workflows, or submit_for_approval, nor does it mention prerequisites such as required permissions. The trigger-type and mode lists are enumerations of field values, not usage guidance.

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