create_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly lists side effects: 'creates agents + tasks and marks the workflow completed', and explains default role behavior and budget sharing. It could mention reversibility or permission requirements, but the key side effects are present.

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?

Four short sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by default behavior, usage guidance, and side effects. Every sentence earns its place.

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 workflow-creation tool, the description covers purpose, defaults, side effects, and when not to use it. An output schema exists, so return value documentation is not required here. It lacks some details like idempotency or auth, but those are not essential for initial 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that 'agents' defaults to planner then worker and that 'budget_usd' is shared across roles. This helps the agent understand how the parameters relate to each other.

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 action ('Create specialist agents and run a sequential multi-agent workflow') and clearly identifies the resource. It further distinguishes itself from run_task, making it easy for an agent to know this is the multi-agent orchestration tool.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when a goal needs more than one agent' and 'Do not use to run a single existing agent (run_task)'. This gives both positive and negative usage conditions and names the alternative tool.

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