edit_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses idempotency via a unique request_id, revision-conflict handling, server-side validation, and the single-operation constraint. This is unusually transparent for a mutation tool.

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?

Six short sentences, each carrying critical information: purpose, single-operation rule, allowed types, idempotency, conflict handling, and validation. No filler; constraints are front-loaded for immediate visibility.

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 description covers the core behaviors an agent needs: what to submit, how to ensure idempotency, and how to recover from conflicts. The main gap is the lack of per-operation payload schemas (e.g., what fields add_node requires), but the server-validation note and enumerated types reduce the risk of misuse.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains request_id (idempotency), expected_revision (known revision/conflict), and operations (allowed types, exactly one). It does not detail the internal fields of each operation type, but it does compensate for the schema's complete lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Apply Astro Flow operations to a canvas at a known revision.' It also enumerates the exact operation types (add_node, remove_node, set_parameter, connect, disconnect), making it distinct from siblings like get_workflow (read) and submit_workflow (likely full submission) without ambiguity.

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?

Provides clear usage context: send the edit at a known revision, send exactly one operation, and on revision conflict read the canvas again before retrying. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is concrete enough for an agent to apply correctly.

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