n8n_update_workflow

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the partial update semantics (omission preserves values) but fails to mention idempotency, error handling (e.g., workflow not found), side effects, or whether the workflow must be deactivated first.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words beyond the '[UNIFIED]' metadata tag. Critical information about optional parameters is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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 complex mutation tool with nested object parameters (nodes, connections) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks return value description, validation behavior for workflow graphs, or permission requirements.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only names the parameters without explaining their complex structures. It doesn't explain what 'site' refers to (instance URL/ID), the schema for 'nodes' array objects, or valid 'settings' keys.

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?

States specific verb 'Update' and resource 'existing workflow', listing modifiable fields (nodes, connections, settings, name). The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is noise, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like n8n_duplicate_workflow or n8n_activate_workflow.

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?

Provides crucial guidance that optional parameters preserve current values when omitted (PATCH-like behavior). However, lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like n8n_create_workflow or prerequisites such as workflow retrieval.

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