Update workflow template state

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: an authorization requirement, optimistic-concurrency enforcement via expected_metadata_revision, and the default-template replacement constraint. It does not describe downstream effects on workflows using the template or whether archiving is reversible.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the conditional constraints following. Every sentence adds an actionable constraint.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the role requirement, revision guard, and the one conditional edge case. It stops short of explaining side effects on referencing workflows or the resulting state, leaving a small but real gap.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: archive/reactivate explains is_active, 'exact expected_metadata_revision' conveys the concurrency-guard semantics, and replacement_template_id is tied to the default-template case. Only template_id is left entirely implicit, which is minor given its obvious correspondence to the tool name.

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 uses a specific verb pair and resource ('Archive or reactivate a template'), making the mutation and its direction unambiguous. It is clearly separable from siblings like set_default_workflow_template or publish_workflow_template_version, which perform different template operations.

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 states preconditions (OWNER role, exact expected_metadata_revision) and a conditional usage rule (archiving the default template needs an active replacement_template_id in the same transaction). It does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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