ghl_workflow_create

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior; the description adds genuinely new traits: full pre-persist validation (a rejected request creates nothing), always-draft creation, required OAuth scope workflows.write, dual rate limits with no Retry-After header, and the 403 WORKFLOW_API_NOT_ENABLED_FOR_LOCATION code. Deducted one point because the log-retention details (30/60 days) belong to the logging tools and dilute the behavioral signal for this operation.

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 lead block is front-loaded with the availability caveat and ordering, which is the right priority, but the limited-availability 403 notice is stated twice verbatim in substance, and the log-retention sentence earns no place in a create tool. Roughly a third of the text is duplicated or off-target.

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 wrapping a large nested DTO with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: availability gating, atomic validation semantics, the resulting state (draft), the follow-up call to publish, auth scope, and rate-limit behavior. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 description coverage is 100% and the nested DTO documents name, edges, actions, triggers, version, and folder fields in depth, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds only 'complete definition' and the location scoping, no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema — baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a workflow from a complete definition') and distinguishes it from the sibling write paths by naming Update Workflow Status for publishing. The draft-only outcome is spelled out, so an agent knows exactly what state the resource lands in.

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?

Gives an explicit recommended sequence: get step types -> build the definition -> validate (validate_workflow_definition, read-only) -> create -> publish via update status. It also names the precondition (workflow API enabled for selected sub-accounts) and the exact failure signature for the excluded case, so an agent can self-diagnose a 403 instead of blaming its token.

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