Apollo MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't describe what happens during the update (e.g., whether it's atomic, reversible, or requires specific permissions). It mentions returning 'Updated workflow details' but gives no insight into format, error conditions, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then provides organized parameter documentation in a bulleted format, and ends with return information. Every sentence serves a purpose with minimal waste. The only minor improvement would be integrating usage guidance more seamlessly.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 6 parameters, and an output schema exists, the description does an adequate job. The parameter semantics are well-covered, and the output schema will handle return value documentation. However, the description lacks important context about behavioral aspects (permissions, side effects, error handling) and usage guidelines, which are particularly important for an update operation in a system with multiple workflow-related tools.

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?

The description provides a clear, bulleted list of all 6 parameters with brief explanations of what each represents (e.g., 'New workflow name', 'Updated trigger events'). This adds substantial semantic meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage and only provides titles like 'Name' and 'Trigger Events'. The parameter explanations help the agent understand what data to provide for each field.

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 ('an existing workflow'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like workflow_create, workflow_delete, and workflow_get by specifying it's for updating existing workflows rather than creating, deleting, or retrieving them. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from workflow_activate, which might overlap in functionality.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing workflow ID), when to choose update over create/delete/activate, or any constraints like permission requirements. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameter list alone.

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