Create workflow

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false), and the description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: the created workflow is undeployed and inert until deploy_workflow, the response carries id and updatedAt, and there are two refusal conditions. That is genuine context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by prerequisite, return, and refusal details in that order. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restating of the name or title.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, and annotations cover safety; the remaining risk areas for a create tool — node validation and accidental deploy expectations — are both addressed. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description rises above it by explaining that the graph is optional and by pointing at list_node_types/get_node_schemas as the source of valid node `type` and `data` shapes. It does not add edge-routing or position conventions, so it stops short of a 5.

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 ('Create a new, undeployed workflow') plus scope ('optionally with an initial graph'), which cleanly separates it from update_workflow, deploy_workflow, and get_workflow. An agent knows exactly what this produces 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?

Explicitly names prerequisites and alternative tools: use list_node_types and get_node_schemas before guessing property names, and deploy_workflow is the tool that actually runs things. It also states when the call is refused (plan workflow limit reached, connection restricted to existing workflows), which is a real when-not condition.

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