Create Workflow

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explicitly warning that multiple records (workflow, version, activities, transitions) are created, which aligns with the non-readOnly and openWorld annotations. It also discloses the orchestration sequence and the id/index referencing convention, providing behavioral context that is not present in the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by a concise bullet-like orchestration list and a short cautionary note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main orchestration steps and important side effects, but it omits the return value (e.g., workflow sys_id), which is significant given there is no output schema. The note to 'review the specification carefully' is vague and doesn't highlight potential validation failures or required dependencies beyond the schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds the crucial rule that activities in transitions are referenced by `id` field or array index, which is not fully captured in the individual schema descriptions for `transitions` and `start_activity`. This clarifies how to use multiple parameters together, raising the score to 4.

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 identifies the tool's function: it creates a complete ServiceNow workflow from a single specification, enumerating the orchestration steps (workflow, version, activities, transitions, optional publish). This verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like batch_create_records or execute_flow, which target different operations.

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 opening sentence establishes a clear context: use this when you need to create a complete workflow from a specification rather than building its components individually. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks exclusionary guidance.

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