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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses that published revisions are immutable and that this does not trigger execution, and the read-first instruction hints at version-conflict behavior. It does not say what happens on a stale baseDraftVersion or whether updates are partial/merging, which would materially help for a destructive mutation.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the scope constraint and the prerequisite both front-loaded. 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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with nested free-form objects, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description covers the safety envelope (no published-revision change, no execution, read-first) but leaves the payload contract — especially definition and settings — unexplained. Adequate for avoiding misuse, insufficient for correct 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 description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, including two free-form nested objects (settings, definition) whose shape is entirely undocumented. The description adds no parameter meaning at all — baseDraftVersion is only obliquely implied by "read the current draft first." With this coverage gap, the description should have compensated and does not.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and narrowed resource (an accessible workflow draft), and explicitly scopes out the published revision and run-starting behavior, which separates it from publish_workflow and start_workflow. It stops short of naming the sibling read/list tools an agent would consult, but the draft-only scope is concrete.

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?

"Read the current draft first" is a direct, actionable prerequisite that implies calling get_workflow_draft before updating, and the negative clauses steer away from publishing/starting. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer create_workflow vs update_workflow or of permission requirements, but the usage context is clear.

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