kaiten_update_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the generic 'update' action and does not describe important mutation semantics such as whether stages and transitions replace the entire workflow, whether partial updates are supported, what validation occurs, or any side effects. This is under-disclosed for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the simple operation and the fully documented schema.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out critical context such as required identification of the workflow, update semantics, and expected result. The schema covers parameters, but the missing behavioral and usage context makes the description incomplete for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (name, stages, transitions, workflow_id) already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies; the schema handles the parameter-semantics burden.

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 'Update a company workflow' uses a clear verb and resource, stating exactly what action the tool performs on the targeted entity. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools, but the workflow resource name distinguishes it from update_board, update_card, and similar operations.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus kaiten_create_workflow, kaiten_get_workflow, kaiten_delete_workflow, or list_workflows. The description gives no context on situations where updating is appropriate or where alternatives should be selected.

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