manage_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. However, it does not explain side effects, prerequisites, or what confirms/approve does. It only hints at legacy context but lacks details on mutation, permissions, or response behavior.

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 short (2 sentences) and front-loads the critical legacy vs. Flow Designer distinction. Every sentence earns its place, though a bit more structure could improve clarity for the many parameters.

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's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination, filtering, or the role of most parameters, leaving the agent underinformed for correct invocation.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the 9 parameters beyond mentioning confirm='approve' in passing. Essential parameters like query, action, limit, etc., are left unexplained, failing to compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 that this tool is for the legacy Workflow engine (wf_workflow/wf_activity), distinguishing it from the sibling manage_flow_designer. It identifies the actions (list, get_activities) and the resource type, making the purpose specific and 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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (only for legacy workflows) and when to use the alternative ([most flows are Flow Designer -> use manage_flow_designer]). It also provides a critical usage hint (confirm='approve'), guiding the agent on required values.

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