create_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation, implying it's a write/mutation tool, but doesn't describe what happens upon creation (e.g., whether the workflow is immediately active, if it requires approval, or what the response looks like). It lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundancy or fluff.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameters, behavioral traits, or what to expect upon success/failure. While concise, it lacks the necessary context for an agent to use this tool effectively beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about parameters beyond what's implied by the name ('create_workflow'). It doesn't mention required fields like 'name', optional fields like 'active' or 'table', or their purposes, failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('a new workflow in ServiceNow'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'update_workflow' or 'list_workflows' by specifying creation rather than modification or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_article' or 'create_incident' beyond the resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing workflows), or refer to sibling tools like 'update_workflow' for modifications. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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