setup_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the step-by-step behavior and that the tool prompts the user, but does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency, or whether state changes persist.

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 well-structured with bulleted steps and a clear purpose upfront. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value, and the parameter descriptions are integrated logically.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a multi-step workflow, the description covers all steps, parameter behavior, and user interaction. An output schema exists, so explaining return values is unnecessary. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the meaning of 'step' (1-4) and 'provider_selection' (list from step 2). It adds context not present in the schema, such as the mapping of steps to actions.

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 as a deterministic setup workflow for getting API keys installed, with explicit steps. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'configure_key' by presenting a multi-step interactive guide.

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 specifies that steps must be run in order and details each step's purpose. It explains how to handle the provider_selection parameter when omitted at step 3, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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