Set default workflow template

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the required OWNER privilege and the optimistic-concurrency expectation on expected_metadata_revision. It stops short of explaining conflict behavior when the revision mismatches.

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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two hard prerequisites. No filler and nothing wasted.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts an agent needs: the privilege requirement and the revision precondition. The gap is template_id semantics, which the agent must infer from sibling tools such as list_workflow_templates.

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 only 33% (only farm_id is documented). The description partially compensates by emphasizing that expected_metadata_revision must be the exact current revision, implying concurrency semantics, but template_id remains unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (set/select) and resource (farm default workflow template), which is distinguishable from the similarly named sibling set_default_farm. The phrase 'for its workflow' is slightly awkward but the intent is clear.

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?

It discloses a precondition (OWNER role) and the need for an exact expected_metadata_revision, which is useful context. However, it never says when to prefer this over related siblings like set_default_farm or update_workflow_template_state, nor what happens if the revision is stale.

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