Validate Workflow

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

Annotations say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true; the description explains exactly why a write occurs by disclosing that the report overwrites the version's previous report. It also reassures that the workflow itself is unchanged, which is the key behavioral fact an agent needs before invoking. This is meaningful context beyond what the structured annotations convey.

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 action and followed by the side-effect caveat. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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 three-parameter tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and non-read-only annotations, the description covers the action, the default version selection, the returned report, and the persisted side effect. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents version, instance, and workflow. The description restates the version default (draft if present, else published) but adds nothing about the instance auth alias or about the workflow parameter's name/sys_id/version-sys_id forms. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter detail.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it runs the Workflow Editor's Validate Workflow on a version and returns the report. It also draws a boundary against publishing ('without publishing anything'), which separates it from workflow-mutating siblings. It does not name a specific sibling tool, 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the safe pre-publish check, and the default version rule is spelled out. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as get_workflow, convert_workflow, or any publish path.

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