save_workflow

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

The annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive write, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds real value by disclosing the failure condition tied to verify_outcome, but it says nothing about whether re-saving the same plan_id or name overwrites, whether the call is idempotent, or what error shape comes back.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the harder constraint (the failure condition) comes after the purpose statement in the right order. Nothing in the text is redundant.

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 mutating tool with four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotation detail, the description leaves too much open. An agent cannot tell what plan_id should reference, whether name must be unique, or what saving returns, so it would likely need to inspect sibling tools to call this correctly.

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% across four parameters (plan_id, name, description, params), so the description must carry the load and it does not. Only a vague implication from the word 'plan' hints at plan_id, and the params array of name/type/example objects is entirely unexplained.

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 verb 'Store' and the resource 'verified plan' clearly state the action, and 'for reuse' is a specific purpose that separates it from propose_workflow or execute_workflow. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the phrase 'verified plan' ties it to verify_outcome, so an agent can still place it in the 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 a concrete precondition: 'Fails unless verify_outcome passed', which tells an agent exactly when the call will succeed and implies a sequencing step before it. It does not name alternatives such as run_saved_workflow or propose_workflow, so there is no explicit when-not to call it, keeping it below a 5.

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