create_workflow

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description confirms a write operation and reveals a side effect: saving as YAML template when save_as_template=True. It does not contradict annotations and adds behavioral context beyond structured data.

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 begins with purpose, then provides usage guidance, lists skills, explains parameters, returns, and gives an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, achieving conciseness despite length.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return value (dict with workflow_id and plan summary). It explains steps structure, available skills, special actions like require_approval, and includes a complete example. This comprehensive context enables correct tool selection and invocation.

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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in detail. It steps structure (action, skill, tool, params, optional rollback) and behavior of save_as_template. The example further clarifies usage, adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 that the tool creates a custom workflow from a step list, using the '[WRITE]' prefix and explicit verb. It distinguishes from siblings by advising use when built-in templates don't match, and lists available skills, making purpose 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use ('when none of the built-in templates match') and how to use, including an example and note that AI designs steps. It also directs to call run_workflow to execute, covering the full workflow lifecycle.

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