Set workflow agent

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains important behavior: when base_version is omitted, the tool reads the workflow's current version, and a stale base_version is rejected with the current version. This adds meaningful concurrency semantics not captured by readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, usage triggers, and the key concurrency nuance with no wasted words. The most actionable information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 that annotations convey idempotency and non-destructiveness, and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers when to use the tool, how the version check behaves, and what to expect on stale versions. No critical information for a correct call is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining the stale base_version rejection behavior and clarifying what happens when base_version is omitted, which goes beyond the schema's brief parameter text.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Assign one of your agents to a workflow.' It also provides concrete trigger scenarios, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling operations like create_workflow or edit_workflow.

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 gives explicit usage triggers: 'Use this after delete_agent reports paused workflows, or when run_workflow returns workflow_agentless.' It clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or suggest an alternative.

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