Update Assignees And Workflow Manager (Company)

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

The description states that it returns the modified object on success, aligning with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It also specifies required parameters. No contradictions found, but no additional behavioral traits are disclosed beyond what annotations imply.

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 concise with 5 sentences, clearly front-loading the purpose. It includes relevant endpoint details without being overly verbose. Could be slightly more succinct, but it is well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description informs that the modified object is returned on success, which is adequate. It covers required parameters, API version, and endpoint. For a mutation tool with partial updates, this is complete enough for agent invocation.

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 description adds value by clarifying that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and listing required parameters explicitly. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the extra context justifies a 4.

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 verb 'Updates', the resource 'assignees and workflow manager', and the context 'for a workflow preset for a company tool'. It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'update_assignees_and_workflow_manager_project' by specifying company scope.

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 advises to use this tool to update an existing workflow (only supplied fields changed), which indicates when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with other update tools like 'update_workflow_preset_company'.

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