invariance_workflow_update

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds a key behavioral guarantee: existing cases/runs/events keep their workflow_key, which is valuable context about the patch's impact. It doesn't mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the core behavioral trait is disclosed.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Patch a workflow definition') and immediately provides the most important behavioral guarantee. No wasted words.

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 patch operation with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It clarifies the non-destructive nature regarding existing cases/runs/events, which is the main risk an agent would worry about. It doesn't describe return values, but with no output schema and a patch operation, that's a minor gap. The openWorldHint annotation suggests other properties may exist, which is consistent with a patch operation.

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 57%, with descriptions for custom_metrics, expected_steps, expected_fields, and allowed_outcomes. The description itself doesn't add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The 'key' parameter is required but its semantics are implied by the tool name. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers most parameters and the description doesn't need to repeat them.

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 uses a specific verb ('Patch') and resource ('workflow definition'), clearly indicating a partial update operation. It distinguishes itself from workflow_create and workflow_delete by the patch semantics, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 implies usage for updating an existing workflow definition without affecting existing cases/runs/events. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs workflow_create or workflow_get, but the patch semantics and the invariance note provide some context. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are named.

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