create_workflow_step

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and typical attachments, without mentioning required permissions, side effects, idempotency, or other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 a single concise sentence, which is front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with five parameters and no other documentation. It could be improved with additional details without losing conciseness.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain when to use the tool, what permissions are needed, what the return value looks like, or the meaning of half the parameters.

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 has five parameters with zero descriptions, so the description must compensate. It implicitly mentions workflow and asset_group but leaves name, position, and preserve_subfolders undefined. This is inadequate given the 0% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('workflow step'), and the parenthetical clarifies the typical attachments to workflow and asset_group. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_workflow_step, delete_workflow_step, and get_workflow_step.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_workflow_step, though the verb 'create' implies it is for new steps. It mentions typical attachments but lacks prerequisites or exclusion criteria, leaving usage context largely implicit.

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