ghl_workflow_validate_definition

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: limited availability with 403 WORKFLOW_API_NOT_ENABLED_FOR_LOCATION, no Retry-After on rate limits, separate read/write budgets, and response semantics where 200 can still mean valid: false while 4xx means malformed request. It also clarifies that nothing is persisted.

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 purpose and operational caveats are front-loaded, but the description is long and repeats limited-availability information in two separate blocks. It also includes log retention details that are not clearly relevant to invoking validation.

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 complex nested body with no output schema, the description supplies important context: read-only behavior, availability errors, rate limits, and key response semantics. It does not fully describe the successful response shape beyond valid: false, which keeps it from being complete.

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%, so the schema already documents locationId and the nested body fields in detail. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: read-only dry validation of a workflow definition. It immediately distinguishes the operation from real save/create behavior by saying nothing is created or changed and that it runs the save pipeline without persisting.

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 suggested order: get step types, build the definition, validate, create, then publish. This makes clear when to use validation relative to sibling tools such as get_workflow_definition, create, and update_status.

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