aap_create_workflow_template

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool creates a template without nodes ('After creation, use the AAP UI or API to add workflow nodes') and returns a JSON with id and name. This goes beyond the annotation hints, though it doesn't cover permissions or error conditions.

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 concise, with a clear structure: one-line purpose, example, note, and Args/Returns sections. No redundant sentences. The note about adding nodes is valuable and earns its place. Slightly more detail on parameters could be added without bloat, so a 4.

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 tool has 6 sub-fields and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose, the return format, and a key limitation (nodes must be added later). However, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., organization assignment) or typical fields to set, and the schema descriptions are sparse. This is adequate for a simple create but leaves some gaps for a complex workflow template.

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%. The description only labels the parameter as 'Workflow template configuration' and does not explain any of the subfields (e.g., extra_vars, organization_id, survey_enabled). The example hints at real-world usage but doesn't clarify how parameters map to the example. This leaves the agent to rely solely on field names and types, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a new AAP workflow template.' The example ('Create a workflow that provisions EC2 and configures Apache') gives a concrete use case, and the name differentiates from sibling tools like update, delete, and launch.

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 a clear example of when to use it. It also notes that workflow nodes must be added separately via the UI/API, implying this tool is for initial creation only. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when to use update vs create, so it's not a 5.

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