update_workflow

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

The annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true), but the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not state that nodes/connections are replaced, settings are merged, or that only provided fields are updated—all crucial for a 7-field update tool. This leaves the agent unaware of side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists the fields without redundant words. It is concise and to the point, effectively summarizing the tool's purpose in 14 words.

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 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits critical behaviors like merge-versus-replace semantics, partial update behavior, and any response details. This is insufficient for an AI agent to safely invoke the tool with full understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are already well-documented (e.g., 'Replace all nodes', 'Update settings (merged)'). The description simply lists field names without adding any extra semantics, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'update' with the target resource 'workflow' and enumerates the exact fields (name, nodes, connections, settings, tags, active status), making its purpose clear and distinguishing it from create/delete/get operations. Although there are specialized activate/deactivate tools, the field list covers their scope, so it's unambiguous what this tool does overall.

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 phrase 'existing workflow' clearly signals that this tool is for modifying an already created workflow, implying it should not be used for creation or retrieval. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like activate_workflow/deactivate_workflow for status-only changes, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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