update_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Replace an existing n8n workflow,' implying a mutation operation, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is destructive (overwrites the entire workflow), requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's action and key parameters. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (mutation tool with nested objects), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context: behavioral traits (e.g., destructiveness), parameter details, error handling, and output expectations. For a tool that replaces workflows, this leaves too many unknowns for effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'workflowId' and 'workflow' (JSON), but adds minimal semantic value: it doesn't explain the format of 'workflowId' (e.g., string identifier) or the structure of the 'workflow' object (e.g., JSON schema for n8n workflows). With 2 parameters and low coverage, this is inadequate.

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 action ('Replace') and resource ('existing n8n workflow by ID with JSON'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_workflow' (new vs. replace) and 'delete_workflow' (replace vs. remove), though it doesn't explicitly name them. However, it lacks specificity about what 'replace' entails (e.g., full overwrite vs. partial update).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing workflow ID), exclusions (e.g., not for partial updates), or refer to sibling tools like 'create_workflow' for new workflows or 'delete_workflow' for removal, leaving usage context unclear.

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