create_export_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does disclose key constraints: 'fixes type to "exports" and trigger_event_type to "scheduled"' and that schedule_cron has a 'minimum interval of five minutes.' However, it does not explain what 'builds the export task from export-specific fields' entails, nor does it mention return values, error handling, or side effects beyond creation.

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 two sentences and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds technical constraints. Every sentence contributes value with no filler or repetition of schema details. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested filters, no output schema), the description covers important constraints but leaves gaps. It doesn't mention what the return value will be, whether the workflow is deployed or saved as a draft, or what prerequisites might be needed (e.g., existing request logs). It also doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling workflow-creation tools, which would help in a context with many similar tools.

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 88%, which is high, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one relevant detail not in the schema: schedule_cron has a 'minimum interval of five minutes.' It also provides context that the tool forces type and trigger_event_type, which clarifies the role of certain parameters. However, it doesn't provide substantial additional semantics over the schema's existing field descriptions.

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's function: 'Create a scheduled request-log Export workflow.' It specifies the verb 'create' and the resource 'scheduled request-log Export workflow,' which distinguishes it from other workflow creation tools like create_automation_workflow or create_monitor_workflow. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, the specificity of 'Export' and 'scheduled' helps an agent understand its purpose.

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 usage context is implied by the description: this tool is for creating scheduled export workflows, as indicated by 'scheduled request-log Export workflow' and the mention of fixing trigger_event_type to 'scheduled.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_workflow or create_automation_workflow, nor does it include any 'when not to use' guidance.

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