derive_workflow_bundle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool has side effects and that confirm=false provides a safe preview, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe what side effects occur when confirm=true (what writes, what network calls), the impact on data, or any other behavioral traits like idempotency or error cases. The disclosure is partial and leaves critical unknown behavior.

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, front-loaded with the 'side-effect tool' warning and the preview condition. There is no wasted wording, but it is under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters and many siblings. The conciseness is appropriate in length but not in content, so it earns a middle score.

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 complex tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, an output schema (unseen), and 25 siblings, this description is drastically incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's core function, differentiate it from similar workflow tools, define parameters (except confirm), or discuss return values or failure modes. An agent would not be able to call it correctly or decide when to use it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the confirm parameter (confirm=false = preview), but ignores force, api_cost_ack, podcast_id, and episode_ref entirely. Even for confirm, it doesn't explain what confirm=true does beyond being not-preview. Other parameters remain unexplained, leaving agents to guess their purpose.

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?

Description labels the tool as a 'side-effect tool' but never states what 'derive_workflow_bundle' actually does. It doesn't specify a clear verb+resource or explain what a workflow bundle is or how deriving it differs from running workflows (siblings like run_research_workflow). The purpose remains vague and relies on the tool name for meaning.

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 only mentions that confirm=false is a preview mode with zero writes/network, which is a condition for using the tool, not guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is given for selecting this over the many run_* or query_* siblings, nor any prerequisites for calling it.

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