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

Annotations already signal a mutating, non-destructive operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: full-replace semantics ('Send the complete draft shape'), the ordering requirement for Context steps, and the side-effect limitation that no release/publish occurs. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tool-specific portion is tight and front-loaded: three sentences covering the operation, the full-shape requirement, and the get-first guidance. The appended Plan and Billing section is generic organization boilerplate that is not tool-specific and adds roughly 100 tokens that do not help an agent select or invoke this tool correctly, preventing a 5.

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 an 18-parameter mutating tool, the description covers the operation scope, overwrite semantics, ordering requirement, and the draft-only boundary. With 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, nothing critical is missing. A minor gap: it does not state what happens to omitted optional fields, though 'complete draft shape' strongly implies replacement.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value above the schema by warning that this is a complete-shape update, not a partial patch — telling the agent to include all fields and ordered Context steps, which affects how all parameters should be populated. This is meaningful guidance the field-level schema descriptions do not convey.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing private Oi Workflow draft in the current organization by workflowId.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like oi.workflows.create (existing vs new), oi.workflows.get (mutation vs read), and any publish/release operation ('This updates the draft only; it does not release or publish').

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 instructs when to use a sibling instead: 'Use oi.workflows.get first if the agent needs to inspect the current workflow.' It also stakes out the tool's boundary by stating it updates the draft only and does not release/publish. It does not name a publish/release alternative explicitly, but the when-to-use guidance is clear and actionable.

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