conduyt_workflow_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the most important trait: validation does not save or mutate anything. It also discloses the return shape (errors and warnings), which is valuable since there is no output schema. It stops short of saying what happens on a malformed or unparseable graph (throw vs. error list) or whether warnings block promotion.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the non-persistent scope and ending with the hard precondition. Nothing is wasted and no sentence merely restates the name.

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 two-parameter validator with a nested graph object and no output schema, the description covers purpose, non-mutation, and return content adequately. It is slightly thin on the graph's internal structure, but the schema itself partially covers that.

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 both parameters (graph, triggerEvent) are already documented in the schema and baseline 3 applies. The description adds no guidance on node types, startNodeId semantics, or how triggerEvent interacts with the graph's start node, even though the graph object allows additionalProperties.

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?

States a specific verb (Validate) and resource (workflow graph) and immediately scopes it as non-persistent with "WITHOUT saving it." That distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling conduyt_workflow_promote, which does persist, and from conduyt_workflow_simulate.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: "Always call this before conduyt_workflow_promote." It also names the motivating condition — fixing errors before creating or publishing — so the when-to-use case is unambiguous.

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