Update Workflow Preset (Project)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed and returns the modified object. This clarifies partial update behavior but doesn't disclose permissions, side effects, or error cases.

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 reasonably concise (two main sentences) and includes API version and endpoint. However, the required parameters list is redundant with the schema, slightly inflating length.

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, the description sufficiently covers the operation and return value. It lacks mention of output schema (none exists) and error conditions, but overall it is adequate for agents to invoke correctly.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description restates required parameters but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool updates a workflow preset for a project, using 'Updates' and specifying the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the company-level counterpart or related tools like get_workflow_preset_project, relying on the title for context.

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 mentions 'Use this to update an existing Workflows' but provides no guidance on when to prefer this over other tools (e.g., get or list) or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are given.

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