design_workflow

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

The description discloses the key behavior: it creates a DRAFT workflow with state=DRAFT, returns a proposed-steps placeholder for review/edit, and pushes the agent toward update_draft and confirm_draft next. The annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive write, and the description adds lifecycle context without contradicting them.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the action and trigger, followed by the flow and return contract. There is minor redundancy between 'Returns a DRAFT workflow...' and the later 'Returns:' block, but the latter is more precise about the output shape.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the required input, the returned workflow state, the placeholder behavior, and the follow-up flow. It does not cover error conditions or constraints details, but the schema fills the constraints gap and the missing details are minor.

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 coverage is 100%, with both `goal` and `constraints` already documented. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond explaining that the input is a natural-language description; it does not go deeper on constraints, so the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource ('Start designing a workflow') and explains that it converts a natural-language goal into a DRAFT workflow with proposed steps. It does not explicitly call out how it differs from similar siblings like plan_workflow or create_workflow, though the DRAFT/lifecycle wording provides some differentiation.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: use this when the user describes a complex operation needing a multi-step workflow. It also provides a design flow and instructs the agent to call get_skill_catalog for candidate tools. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or how it compares to sibling planning tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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