Update Workflow

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), not destructive (destructiveHint=false), and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds no further behavioral context beyond stating it updates fields. It does not mention side effects, such as whether omitted fields remain unchanged or the impact of different status values.

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 (12 words) that efficiently conveys what the tool updates. It is appropriately front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for clarity.

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 complexity of 5 parameters (all undocumented in schema) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the effect of updating specific fields, return values, or error conditions. An agent would lack crucial context to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It merely lists the parameter names (name, description, status, git_branch_pattern) without adding any semantics, constraints, or format details. For example, it does not mention that status has an enum or that workflow_id is required.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'workflow', and lists specific fields (name, description, status, git branch pattern) that can be updated. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cph_workflow_create and cph_workflow_list.

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 such as cph_workflow_create or cph_workflow_reconstruct. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or typical use cases.

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