editWorkflow

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false) by disclosing atomicity ('apply all together or not at all'), optimistic-concurrency behavior (mandatory revision, 409 retry loop), secret round-trip masking ('********' must be sent back unchanged), and draft-vs-live scope. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does, then the atomicity constraint, the revision requirement, the error path, and the draft-vs-publish distinction. Every sentence carries an operational fact and none is padding.

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 mutation tool with nested ops and no output schema, it covers everything an agent needs: scope (draft only), concurrency contract, atomicity, secret handling, and the escalation path to publishWorkflow. No relevant behavior is left unstated.

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 100% and the op-level table already documents every field per operation, so the description's op list and secret/revision notes are largely duplicative. It does add one genuinely non-schema fact, that the ops apply atomically, which justifies going above the baseline 3.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb (change/edit) and resource (the draft) and enumerates the op families: add, update, move, delete nodes, connect/disconnect. It also explicitly separates itself from the sibling publishWorkflow, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

States the condition that selects this tool ('edits the draft only') and names the alternative for the other intent ('Use publishWorkflow to make it live'). It also gives the required precondition (send the revision from your last read) and the recovery path for the 409 revision_conflict case, which is explicit when/when-not guidance.

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