runrunit_create_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action (create) and a consequence ('starts tracking eligibility'), but gives no details on reversibility, error behavior, permissions, or side effects. For a mutation tool, this is minimal and insufficient for an agent to assess risks or outcomes.

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 sentence that conveys the core action and a key condition. No redundant information, no filler. It is efficiently front-loaded with the verb and purpose.

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?

Despite low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description omits crucial context: what the tool returns on success, possible error scenarios when conditions are not met, or any further behavioral details. Without an output schema, the description should at least indicate the result format or state after creation. The provided information is too sparse for a complete understanding.

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 sole parameter 'task_id' is fully described in the schema with description 'Task ID', so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add new semantic details about the parameter beyond the schema, but the prerequisite conditions (task state) provide indirect context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool creates a workflow for a task and mentions it starts tracking eligibility. The verb 'create' and resource 'workflow for a task' are specific. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools that also deal with task-related workflows or creation actions, missing explicit 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?

The description provides explicit conditions for use: 'Task must not be closed, ongoing, or already have a workflow.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus not. However, it does not name alternative tools for cases where the task already has a workflow or is in an unsuitable state, so it lacks explicit cross-referencing.

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