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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent behavior, so safety is partly covered. The description still adds real value by scoping the mutation to the draft only, confirming no published revision is touched and no work is started, plus the read-before-write requirement. It does not say what happens to omitted fields or why destructiveHint is set, leaving a gap.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then scope exclusions, then the precondition. Nothing is redundant and each sentence carries a distinct constraint.

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?

The scope-of-effect story is well covered, but for a destructive six-parameter mutation with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the required baseDraftVersion token and field-merge behavior remain undocumented. Adequate at the workflow level, incomplete at the invocation level.

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 six parameters with no definitions at all. The description says nothing about baseDraftVersion, which is a required optimistic-concurrency token whose semantics an agent cannot infer, nor about how name/settings/definition/description are merged. This is the tool's biggest documentation hole.

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+resource ('Update an accessible workflow draft'), and immediately narrows scope by ruling out published revisions and run-starting, which implicitly distinguishes it from publish_workflow and start_workflow. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so an agent must map the contrast itself.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Read the current draft first') and two explicit exclusions ('Does not change an immutable published revision or start work'), which routes the agent away from publish_workflow/start_workflow. No named alternative tool is given, so it is context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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