workflow_advance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'checkpoint validation' but does not disclose behaviors such as error handling on validation failure, required permissions, idempotency, or whether it is destructive. The description is too brief for a safe understanding.

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, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Given 5 parameters (especially optional ones like condition_result, token_consumed) and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the concept of checkpoint validation, how optional params affect behavior, or what happens after advancement.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema names and descriptions. It does not explain how parameters like 'outputs' or 'confirmed_conditions' are used in context.

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 what the tool does: 'Complete the current step and advance the workflow after checkpoint validation.' It uses specific verbs (complete, advance) and resource (workflow step), and distinguishes from siblings like workflow_start and workflow_status.

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 implies usage when a workflow step is ready for checkpoint validation and advancement, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like workflow_bind or workflow_start. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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