Create Workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses required fields inside workflow and the default behavior of placing the workflow in the project root or personal project. However, it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or what happens on conflict, which are relevant behavioral traits for a creation 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, beginning with the core action and requirement. Every sentence adds necessary information: required fields, folder placement, and project selection. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 description covers the essential information needed to construct a valid create_workflow call: required fields and optional routing parameters. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. It could be more complete by mentioning error cases or permissions, but the main invocation context is sufficiently specified.

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?

The schema provides only a generic workflow object with additionalProperties true and no property descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does so by enumerating required fields (name, nodes, connections, settings) and optional routing fields (parentFolderId, projectId), adding meaning the schema lacks. It stops short of fully defining the structure of nodes or connections, but the core semantics are covered.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new workflow') and differentiates it from siblings like update_workflow, activate_workflow, and delete_workflow. It also clarifies the scope by specifying that this is for new workflows, not modifying or executing existing ones.

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 contextual guidance for when to include parentFolderId or projectId, which helps the agent decide how to construct the call. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the create verb and the optional conditions make the intended usage clear.

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