dooray_workflows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions create/update/delete operations implying mutations, but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether deletions are permanent, rate limits, or what happens to associated data. For a multi-action tool with destructive operations, this is inadequate.

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 efficiently structured as a single sentence listing all actions. It's appropriately sized for a multi-action tool, though could be more front-loaded by emphasizing the primary purpose before listing actions.

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 tool with 4 parameters, multiple actions including destructive operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, and response formats given the complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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 all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between action and other parameters or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool manages Dooray workflows with specific verbs (list, get, create, update, delete) and identifies the resource (workflows). It distinguishes from siblings like dooray_comments or dooray_tasks by focusing on workflows, but doesn't explicitly differentiate within the workflow management domain since there are no sibling workflow tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dooray_tasks or dooray_search. It lists actions but offers no context about prerequisites, when to choose create vs update, or how this tool fits into broader workflow management scenarios.

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