Update Workflow Preset (Company)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds that only supplied fields are changed and returns the modified object, plus the API endpoint. However, it does not disclose permissions, side effects, or error handling. Moderate additional value.

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 sentences: purpose, update behavior, and API reference. No fluff, front-loaded with key info. Very concise.

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 simple update tool with 3 parameters and adequate schema, the description covers update semantics, required params, and API endpoint. It lacks definition of what a workflow preset is, but the name and context imply it. Adequate for most use cases.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description mentions required params (company_id, id) which is redundant. The partial update behavior is noted but adds little beyond schema.

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 it updates a workflow preset for a company tool, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_workflow_preset_company' but does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_workflow_preset_project'.

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 says to use this tool to update existing workflows, implying when to use. It lists required parameters but provides no guidance on when not to use or alternatives (e.g., for creation or deletion). The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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