Update workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool performs a full replacement (complete object required), which is a key behavioral constraint. It does not mention authorization requirements, side effects, or error handling, but the core behavior is sufficiently conveyed.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second provides a crucial usage hint. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise.

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 output schema exists, return values need no explanation. The description covers the main behavioral nuance (complete object requirement) and references a sibling tool for fetching. It lacks details about validation or potential errors, but for a straightforward update tool, this is mostly complete.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds the instruction to fetch the workflow object first, which provides contextual value. However, the schema already describes the 'workflow' parameter as 'Complete workflow object', so the added semantic value is marginal, justifying a 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 description clearly states the tool updates an existing workflow, with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('workflow'). It also specifies sending the complete workflow object, distinguishing it from sibling tools like n8n_create_workflow or n8n_partial_update (if existed).

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 explicitly instructs to get the workflow first with n8n_get_workflow, providing a clear usage sequence. It implies that partial updates are not supported by requiring the complete object. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives for partial modifications.

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