create_automation_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does this well. It reveals hidden backend behavior: forced type 'automations', automatic prepending of a dashboard-compatible gate, and automatic supply of generation_method and method-specific config for eval tasks. This goes beyond what the schema alone communicates.

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 concise yet information-dense, front-loading the purpose and then adding the most important behavioral nuances. Each sentence contributes: purpose, automatic gate behavior, supported task categories, and eval auto-configuration. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 complex creation tool, the description covers the key architectural context, supported task types, and hidden transformations. The rich schema fills in parameter-level details. It does not describe return values or workflow lifecycle status (e.g., draft vs. deployed), but most essential creation context is present.

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 high at 83%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds meaningful semantic context by clarifying that the provided tasks follow the automatic sampling gate and that eval tasks only need evaluator_id while the tool supplies backend-required configuration automatically.

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 states the tool creates an 'event-driven Automation workflow' and explains the core structural behavior: it fixes the type to 'automations' and prepends a sampling gate. This distinguishes it from sibling workflow creators like create_monitor_workflow, create_export_workflow, and create_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 provides clear context: this tool is for event-driven automation workflows, with tasks following an auto-added sampling gate. It explains what task types are appropriate and highlights the special evaluator handling. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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