Update Workflow

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that it updates an existing workflow, implying mutation but not disclosing whether updates are additive or destructive, whether validation occurs, what happens to existing workflow properties, or if authentication is required. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies state.

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 and is front-loaded, but it essentially restates the title. It is concise but not informationally dense. While it avoids wasted words, it also avoids providing any additional value, making it minimally acceptable rather than well-crafted.

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 context is incomplete for a mutation tool. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain return values, errors, or side effects. The 'updates' parameter is open-ended, and the description offers no example or clarification. With no annotations and minimal schema detail, the description fails to provide sufficient context for safe and correct usage.

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 100%, so each parameter has a description. The 'updates' object is described as 'Properties to update' but with additionalProperties allowed, the actual valid keys are not documented. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, and the schema itself is vague about possible update properties. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers parameter descriptions, but neither the schema nor the description clarifies permissible update keys.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('an existing workflow'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_workflow (by specifying 'existing') and get_workflow (by being a mutation verb). However, it doesn't detail what 'updates' means or what aspects of the workflow can be modified.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_document, create_workflow). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases. The description is purely a statement of action without context.

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