Rowan MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies mutation, the description doesn't address permission requirements, whether updates are reversible, what happens on partial updates, or error handling. The return format is mentioned but without details about what 'updated workflow information' contains.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose but then duplicates schema documentation unnecessarily. The 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections repeat what's already in the input and output schemas, making the description longer than needed while adding minimal value.

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 mutation tool with no annotations but 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description provides basic functionality but lacks important context. It doesn't explain relationships to sibling tools, doesn't address mutation-specific concerns like permissions or side effects, and doesn't provide guidance on when this operation is appropriate.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description repeats the parameter documentation verbatim from the schema, adding no additional semantic context about parameter interactions, constraints, or usage patterns beyond what's already in the structured fields.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and resource 'workflow details', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'workflow_delete' or 'retrieve_workflow' - it simply states what it does without comparative context.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'workflow_delete', 'retrieve_workflow', or 'list_workflows'. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or appropriate contexts for updating versus creating new workflows.

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