update_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it says almost nothing. 'Update' implies an in-place mutation but the description does not state permission requirements, whether the change is reversible, or whether omitted fields (name, definition) are preserved or cleared. Only the bare implication of mutation is 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?

The description is a single three-word phrase with no wasted words, but this is under-specification rather than true conciseness. There is nothing front-loaded because there is nothing substantive to load.

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 a nested-object parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what 'definition' represents and whether partial updates are supported. None of that context is present, leaving the agent to guess at semantics the structured fields alone cannot supply.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (id, name, definition). The description adds no syntax, format, or partial-update semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas applies.

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 'Update a workflow' merely restates the tool name (update_workflow) and title with no additional specificity about what is being changed. It gives a verb and resource but no fields or scope, so an agent gains nothing it didn't already have from the name. It does not distinguish this tool from adjacent updaters like update_project or update_dataset.

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?

There is no stated when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternative tools such as get_workflow or create_workflow. The agent must infer that this is the mutation counterpart to those siblings entirely on its own. No guidance is provided, though nothing is actively misleading.

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