Create a workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that creation is possible with empty filters/actions, a modest behavioral detail, plus the underlying POST /workflows endpoint. It does not disclose auth needs, side effects on existing workflows, or what the response contains.

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 opening line duplicates the title verbatim, and the 'Immich operation: POST /workflows · tag: Workflows' trailer is boilerplate. The substantive sentence is useful but the whole block is padded with redundant framing.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations covering behavior, the description is thin. It never mentions that 'trigger' is required, does not list the trigger enum values, and does not explain what a workflow or its steps do, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, and the description adds no syntax or format detail. Its mention of 'filters and actions' does not map to any actual schema property (steps/trigger/name/enabled/logging/description), so it neither clarifies nor compensates.

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 workflow), which is clearly distinct from the update/delete/get/search workflow siblings. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate against those siblings, and the first line merely restates the title.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The only usage-adjacent note is that the workflow may be created with empty filters and actions, which is a constraint rather than routing guidance.

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