Ghl Create Workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses 'WRITES to the live account,' which is a critical behavioral trait. It also states it creates a 'draft workflow' and returns the id, clarifying the side effect and return. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but the core write nature is transparent.

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 two sentences with zero redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds essential follow-up context. Every word earns its place; it is efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool has two parameters with no schema descriptions, the description should explain what 'name' and 'location_id' represent. It does not. While the output schema is present (so return values are covered) and the write nature is disclosed, the missing parameter semantics leaves the agent unable to call the tool correctly. The mention of ghl_call is useful but insufficient.

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 0%, meaning the input schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description does not mention 'name' or 'location_id' at all, so an agent has no idea what values to pass. This is a critical gap for a tool with two parameters. The description's lack of parameter explanation fails to compensate for the schema's silence.

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: 'Create an empty draft workflow and return its id.' It specifies the verb, resource, and key distinguishing feature (empty draft). This separates it from other creation tools like ghl_create_contact or ghl_create_tag, and the mention of 'return its id' clarifies the output.

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 gives follow-up guidance: 'Triggers and actions can then be added with ghl_call,' indicating a typical workflow sequence. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use ghl_list_workflows or ghl_get_workflow), nor does it list exclusions. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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