Publish a workflow as a REST API

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds real context: the returned POST URL blocks until the workflow finishes and returns its JSON result, and repeat calls are idempotent (reuse the endpoint). It does not mention auth/permission requirements, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the return behavior, then the idempotency note. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return (a POST URL that returns the workflow's JSON result) and the idempotency behavior. It is complete for invoking, though it omits permission/prerequisite context and gives no parameter guidance.

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?

Five parameters with only 60% schema coverage; 'workflow' and 'workflow_id' have no description in either schema or description text, and the description adds nothing about how to specify which workflow, the label, or timeout behavior. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: publishing a saved workflow as a managed REST endpoint, and clarifies it uses the same resource as the frontend's REST switch. It is distinguishable from siblings like writ_run_workflow or writ_website_to_api, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 context is implied (expose a saved workflow as an API endpoint) and it notes that repeated calls reuse the existing endpoint, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or comparison against alternatives such as running the workflow directly.

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