zadig_workflow_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly carries the burden of disclosing the tool's most important behavior: it is non-mutating by default and requires an explicit confirm flag to mutate. This is valuable transparency for a potentially destructive update operation, though it does not explain edge cases like dry_run=false with confirm=false.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and the critical safety constraint without any filler. Every word adds 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?

The tool has 6 parameters, a nested workflow object, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, yet the description only addresses the dry_run/confirm guard. An agent would still lack enough context to construct a valid workflow payload or understand parameters like project_key and allow_redacted.

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 0% and the description only adds semantic meaning to dry_run and confirm. It does not explain the shape or role of the workflow object, project_key, workflow_name, or allow_redacted, leaving most parameters under-documented.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a custom workflow'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create, delete, list, get, diff, and apply. An agent can immediately identify this as the mutation operation for an existing workflow.

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?

It provides clear operational context by explaining that dry_run defaults to true and confirm=true is required to actually mutate. This tells the agent how to safely invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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