create_workflow_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does well: it explains the internal process (reads latest committed version, copies editable fields, POSTs to a specific endpoint), discloses the 'refuses to create a second draft' constraint, and notes the inclusion of stored webhook secrets. It doesn't cover permissions or return format, but the key behavioral side effects are disclosed.

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, each earning its place: purpose, usage context, and a key behavioral caveat. The description is compact and front-loaded with the main verb and object, with no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and constraints. Minor gaps include no mention of the return value or error cases (e.g., no committed version exists), but these are not critical for a simple creation tool.

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% because the only parameter workflow_id has a clear description ('Family workflow_id (not a version-row id)'). The tool description doesn't add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource pairing: 'Create an editable draft for a committed workflow family.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like update_workflow by explaining that structural update_workflow calls require a draft, making the tool's unique role evident.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Structural update_workflow calls require a draft,' giving clear context. It also mentions a constraint (refuses a second draft) but does not explicitly name an alternative for updating an existing draft, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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