plan_workflow

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds context beyond that by marking the tool as '[WRITE]' and explaining approval gates for some workflow types while noting compliance_scan is read-only with no approval. It does not fully describe side effects or state changes, but the added context is valuable.

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: it opens with the main action, then usage guidance, then a clear list of workflow types, then parameter details, and finally return value. Every section earns its place, and while lengthy, it is organized with lists and headers that make it easy to scan.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description correctly explains the return value (dict with workflow_id, steps summary, and plan details). It covers all workflow-specific parameter schemas and explicitly mentions the approval gates. This makes the tool complete even for a complex multi-mode operation.

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 input schema has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains workflow_type and then details per-type params for each of the four workflow types with types and field names. This goes well beyond the schema and makes the parameters self-explanatory.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Create an execution plan for a multi-step workflow.' It also lists four specific workflow types and explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool create_workflow, making the tool's purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('Use this when the goal matches one of the built-in types below') and when to use an alternative ('use create_workflow instead when none of them fit'). It also gives a brief scenario for each workflow type, providing strong usage guidance.

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