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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses that unsupported instructions error out and that the tool will not perform general rewrites, and the phrase 'the returned spec' implies it returns a revised spec. It does not mention auth handling despite the authToken param.

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?

Three sentences, fully front-loaded: capability first, alternative route second, hard limits last. Every sentence carries routing or behavioral information with no filler.

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 mutating 4-param tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers scope, exclusions, error behavior, and the follow-up handoff to autofix_workflow. Missing only minor details such as authentication expectations and an explicit statement of what the return looks like.

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 instruction semantics not fully captured by the schema: operations are keyed on node IDs, and revisions may require 'confirmed source evidence,' which ties the instruction to the additionalSources parameter.

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+resource scope: 'Apply explicit node label/role changes or node removal using node IDs, or request connector autofix.' It also draws an explicit boundary against general natural-language rewriting, which separates it from sibling tools like enhance_workflow and autofix_workflow.

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 names exactly when to use the tool (explicit node edits, removals, connector autofix), when not to ('For other changes, including new steps or edges'), and the alternative path (edit the returned spec, then call autofix_workflow). It also states the failure behavior for anything unsupported.

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