replace_workflow_document

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

No annotations given, so description carries full burden. Discloses atomic call, PUT behavior, response being summary not document, and explains returnDocument risks. Fills behavioral gaps completely.

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?

Well-structured with front-loaded core action (replace entire document). Four sentences covering key aspects without redundancy, though could be slightly more concise.

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?

Covers atomic operation, version control, alternatives, response summary fields, and returnDocument caveat. Missing output schema but description provides adequate return expectations for basic use.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds value beyond schema: explains document as 'complete', warns about returnDocument exceeding limits and suggests read_workflow, and contextually ties expectedVersion to prior read and 409 handling.

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 'Replace the ENTIRE workflow document in one atomic call' using a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling 'apply_workflow_mutations' by noting this is a single PUT that treats payload as complete editable document.

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?

Explicitly instructs to read workflow first for version, handle stale 409, and prefer mutation commands for validation. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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