cabinet_record_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key side effects: automatic next ID assignment, ledger persistence, and syncing workflow_notes.md. It still omits permission requirements, duplicate handling, and reversibility, which matter for a write tool.

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?

Three compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and useful category values included. No sentence is wasted, though the WF-M3 reference is opaque without external context.

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?

The output schema means return values need not be explained, and the side effects are covered. However, with five parameters at zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description is not complete enough about parameter meaning or safety/prerequisite 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 0%, so the description needs to explain parameters, but it only lists the allowed category values. It does not clarify the intended content of title, trigger, move, or why, leaving most parameter semantics to inference.

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: records a new workflow heuristic. The word "new" implicitly separates it from cabinet_list_workflows and cabinet_amend_workflow, but those siblings are not named explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear usage condition: use when a repeatable pattern has earned its place, citing Rule WF-M3. It does not state when not to use it or explicitly route edits to cabinet_amend_workflow.

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