manage_workflow

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

No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions it is legacy and that confirm='approve', but does not disclose whether actions are read-only, what they return, or any side effects. Essential behavior is missing.

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 very short, which is concise, but it omits critical information about actions and parameters. Brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, low schema coverage), the description is vastly incomplete. It lacks explanations for actions, query parameters, pagination, and return values, making it insufficient for an AI agent to invoke 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 11% (only version_id has a description). The description only adds context for the confirm parameter, leaving 8 parameters unexplained. This is insufficient for effective use.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool as targeting the legacy workflow engine (wf_workflow/wf_activity) and distinguishes it from the Flow Designer tool (manage_flow_designer). However, it does not explicitly state the actions (list/get_activities) available in the input schema, so some ambiguity remains.

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 states 'LEGACY Workflow engine ONLY' and directs to use manage_flow_designer for most flows, giving a clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use. Also notes that confirm must be 'approve', which is a required parameter.

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