workflow_learn

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

The word 'Record' clearly indicates a state-changing mutation, consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false). However, the description does not go beyond that to explain persistence, overwrite behavior, idempotency, or any side effects beyond the basic act of recording.

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 a single, tight sentence with no redundant or misleading wording. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and even defines the key concept of a workflow.

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 six parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, but the description only covers the two most obvious parameters. It does not mention expected output, errors, prerequisites, or how this relates to sibling workflow and memory tools. A more complete description would address these gaps.

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?

The description clarifies that 'name' is the workflow's name and 'steps' are the sequence, but it leaves all other parameters (context, project, description, trigger_pattern) unexplained. With zero schema descriptions, this is a significant gap; the context object and trigger_pattern semantics are especially unclear.

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 action ('Record'), the resource ('learned workflow'), and defines it as a 'named sequence of steps' for future reuse. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from typical memory-saving 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 implies a use case ('for future reuse') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like workflow_track, workflow_predict, or memory_save. No guidance is given on when not to use it or how it differs from alternative recording/tracking tools.

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