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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by revealing wholesale replacement semantics: display_name is required, description is set exactly to what is passed, and an empty or omitted description clears it. It also clarifies that this update does not touch workflow logic, giving the agent a complete behavioral model.

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?

Two information-dense sentences with no filler. The primary scope is stated first, followed by the wholesale-replace behavior and the read-first precaution, so the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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 definition covers purpose, alternatives, exclusions, parameter behaviors, and a safe update workflow (get_workflow before update). With an output schema present, no return-value documentation is needed, so nothing material is missing for an agent to invoke this 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?

Although the schema already documents all three parameters, the description adds crucial semantics not inferable from it: the required display_name cannot be blank, description is a full replace rather than a patch, and omitted description means clearing. This materially improves correct parameter construction.

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 and resource ('Update a workflow's display_name and description') and scopes it to metadata only, explicitly excluding logic changes and slug changes. It names the sibling tools that handle logic edits, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 and when-not-to-use guidance: logic edits should go through create_workflow_version / patch_workflow, and slug cannot be changed. It also gives a concrete precondition, reading with get_workflow before updating one field, which is directly actionable for an agent.

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