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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context that the operation is metadata-only and does not alter workflow logic, and clarifies that the slug is immutable. This goes beyond the annotation flags without contradicting them.

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 somewhat long but every sentence carries essential information: scope, wholesale-replace behavior, required fields, and the get_workflow-first approach. It is well-structured and not redundant with the schema descriptions.

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 that an output schema exists and no nested objects are present, the description sufficiently covers the operation's context. It explains the distinguishing factors from sibling tools (create_workflow_version, patch_workflow), the slug immutability, and the exact replacement semantics, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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%, and the schema already documents that display_name is required and cannot be blank, and that description is set wholesale with an empty value clearing it. The tool description repeats this guidance but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Update', the resource 'workflow', and the precise scope (display_name and description metadata only). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that logic edits go through create_workflow_version / patch_workflow and that the slug cannot be changed.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it is a wholesale replace, display_name is required, description is set exactly to the passed value (empty clears it), and advises reading current values with get_workflow first to preserve fields. This leaves no ambiguity about how to invoke it correctly.

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