Create workflow

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

Annotations provide only openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so description carries the burden. It adds key behavioral details: new workflow has no steps and cannot run yet, trigger defaults and preconditions, agent_id ownership semantics, and webhook hook URL generation. No contradiction with 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?

The description is moderately long but every sentence serves purpose, lifecycle, or parameter clarification. It is front-loaded with the main action and logically progresses through creation, limitations, and next steps. No redundant phrases, though slightly dense.

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 no output schema and sparse annotations, the description gives a complete picture of the tool's behavior: return value (id, hook URL), default trigger, inability to run until steps built, and how to proceed (invoke_agent, run_workflow). It could mention error behavior or permissions, but overall very thorough for a create tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters, but description adds interdependent meaning beyond schema: trigger_kind default and cron_expr requirement, webhook hook URL generation, and agent_id ownership/assignment behavior. This goes beyond simple field descriptions, adding relationship and side-effect 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 states a specific action ('Create an empty workflow') and result ('Returns the new workflow, including its id and — for a webhook trigger — its hook URL'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like run_workflow (run existing) and get_workflow (fetch), focusing on creation and the empty initial state.

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?

Provides an explicit lifecycle: create → build steps with invoke_agent (sibling tool) → run with run_workflow. Also explains trigger_kind options and requirements (manual default, cron needs cron_expr, webhook mints public URL), clearly indicating when to use this tool and what to do next.

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