create_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation, requires specific environment variable and token scope, and references the platform version. This adequately informs the agent of required permissions and operation type, though more detail on potential side effects could improve transparency.

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?

Two sentences, each delivering essential information: the action and version, followed by prerequisites. No wasted words, and the most critical info is front-loaded.

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 does not specify the return value (e.g., created workflow ID) or error scenarios. Given the tool's complexity (nested object) and absent output schema, the description could be more complete, but it covers the core purpose and prerequisites.

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%, with each sub-field of the 'workflow' parameter having a description. The description adds minimal extra meaning ('Workflow definition per the AutomationEngine v1 spec'), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it creates a Dynatrace Automation workflow, identifies it as a WRITE operation, and specifies the platform version (v1). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_workflow and delete_workflow.

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 lists prerequisites: requires DT_ENABLE_WRITES=true and automation:workflows:write scope. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but for a creation tool, the context is clear.

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