save_workflow

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely extra behavior: extracted values are kept as {{token}}-style variables and are hidden when they look like credentials. That credential-masking disclosure is not derivable from the annotations and is important for safe handling, though auth/token-attachment behavior is left to the schema.

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: the definition comes first, then the step composition rule, then the use cases. Front-loaded and largely waste-free, with only mild overlap against the schema's Step description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the conceptual model an agent needs (ordered steps, extraction, credential hiding) but never mentions the run_workflow/list_workflows counterpart, leaving a small gap in the lifecycle picture.

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 100% and the Step/Extract sub-schemas are highly detailed, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description restates `extract` and `expect_status` with an example, but adds little beyond what the schema's own property descriptions say, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ('Save a workflow') and immediately defines the artifact as an ordered list of requests where later steps can consume earlier values. It also anchors the step shape to the sibling send_request, so an agent can distinguish the composition tool from the single-request tool without opening the schema.

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 closing sentence gives concrete triggering scenarios ('logins, create-then-fetch flows and any sequence you will repeat'), which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use run_workflow vs. save_workflow, or send_request for one-offs), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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