Validate workflow connection structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists what is checked but does not disclose output format, error behavior, or whether it is read-only. As a validation tool it is presumably safe, but that is not stated.

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?

A single sentence with a colon-separated list delivers maximum information efficiently. The phrase 'Just the structural checks' front-loads the purpose, and every word contributes value.

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 tool has one complex nested parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., list of errors, boolean) or how results are presented. This is a significant gap for an agent to understand the tool's behavior after invocation.

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%, and the description provides no details about the 'workflow' parameter. It only implies the workflow object is the subject of checks. The schema itself provides some structure (nodes, connections required), but the description adds no semantic value for parameter usage.

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 lists specific structural checks (unique node names, valid connection references, cycles, unreached nodes, missing trigger node), making the tool's purpose explicit and distinct from siblings like validate_workflow or validate_workflow_expressions. The phrase 'Just the structural checks' further narrows its scope.

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 when to use this tool by limiting it to 'structural checks' only, which suggests using it when only connection structure validation is needed, not full workflow validation or expression checking. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it.

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