update_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that updates are partial (optional parameters keep existing values if not provided), which is useful. However, it lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens on errors, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 concise. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by bullet points for arguments and returns, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, mutation operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks behavioral details like error handling, permissions, or return value specifics. It's adequate as a minimum but has clear gaps for safe and effective use.

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 adds meaningful context beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains each parameter: 'name' identifies the workflow, 'description' is optional and retains existing if omitted, and 'code' is optional Python code that replaces existing if provided. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., code syntax).

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 tool's purpose: 'Update an existing workflow script.' It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('workflow script'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_workflow' or 'modify_workflow' if they existed, though the distinction is implied by 'existing'.

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., workflow must exist), compare to siblings like 'create_workflow' or 'delete_workflow', or specify contexts where it's appropriate. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly stated.

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