Workflows guidance

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior context: it is equivalent to the guidance://workflows MCP resource and exists as a fallback for clients that cannot read resources directly, which explains duplication an agent might otherwise find confusing.

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 short sentences: the routing content first, then the usage constraint, then the resource-equivalence footnote. No filler, and the most actionable material is front-loaded.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain the returned guidance content, and annotations cover the safety profile. It is complete enough to trigger correct use, though a hint about the scope of the guidance (which tools the flow covers) would close the last gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond what the empty schema already shows. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 names a concrete resource (the canonical run → remix → export flow) and states its role as routing guidance across workflow tools, which separates it from generation siblings. It could be sharper about how it differs from get_getting_started_guidance or get_tools_vs_workflows_guidance, which are the closest alternatives.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Call before starting a full video project') plus concrete selection rules between two named siblings (script_to_video for longer narrated videos, storyboard_to_video ≤3 scenes). An agent knows both the trigger and the downstream routing decisions.

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