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

The annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive. The description adds no further behavioral details, such as whether updates are partial or full replacements, idempotency, or side effects. Given openWorldHint=true, more context is warranted.

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 concise sentence and is efficient, but it is under-specified. It avoids verbosity but sacrifices necessary detail, making it too terse for a tool with multiple configuration parameters.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is not complete enough. It does not clarify return values, error conditions, or how the update is applied. The 'steps' parameter is especially opaque, risking incorrect usage.

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 only 25%, with only workflowId described. The description does not explain the semantics of name, steps, or active. The phrase 'configuration or status' gives a vague hint but does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, particularly for the 'steps' array.

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 what the tool does: 'Update a workflow's configuration or status.' The verb and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like create_workflow, delete_workflow, and trigger_workflow. However, it doesn't specify which configuration fields are affected, leaving some ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not indicate prerequisites or scenarios where other workflow tools like trigger_workflow or create_workflow would be more appropriate.

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