rh_create_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two important traits: the revision is immutable and no cloud task is submitted (side-effect scope). It omits permissions/auth, conflict or duplicate-workflow behavior, and error conditions, leaving meaningful gaps for a create operation.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key constraint. No filler.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry everything, yet it says nothing about the five parameters, the return value (e.g., new revision identifier), or failure modes. The local/immutable framing is useful but insufficient for a 5-param create 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?

The schema has 5 parameters at 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only hints at api_graph via 'API graph' and its optionality via 'or an empty draft'; project_id, workflow_id, reason, and output_nodes are entirely unexplained in both places.

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+resource ('Create an immutable local workflow revision') and clarifies the two input modes (API graph or empty draft), which separates it from rh_edit_workflow and rh_import_workflow. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'No cloud task is submitted' implies usage boundaries by contrast with rh_run_workflow, but the agent must infer that this is the local-only authoring step. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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