update_workflow

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

The description discloses optimistic concurrency control via expectedVersion and 409 conflict behavior, and partial update semantics. However, it does not mention the return value (e.g., updated workflow object) or any side effects beyond the draft update, which is a notable omission given no annotations or output schema.

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 concise sentences: state action, provide essential instructions, and note error handling. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 main usage pattern (read, update, retry on conflict) and partial field updates. Lacks mention of return value, but given the complexity (3 params, no output schema) and presence of siblings like apply_workflow_mutations for bulk mutations, the description is fairly complete for an update-draft tool.

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% (each parameter has a description), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how to obtain expectedVersion (read first) and that fields should only include changed keys in camelCase, providing usage context 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?

The description clearly states 'Update a workflow draft' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like read_workflow (read-only), create_workflow (creation), and delete_workflow (deletion), and implies it is the tool for partial updates of drafts.

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 explicitly instructs to read first to get expectedVersion, to retry on 409 conflict, and to pass only changed fields in camelCase. This provides clear operational guidance, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like apply_workflow_mutations, leaving a minor gap.

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