n8n: Update workflow

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is supplied structurally; the description's contribution is the omit-to-keep-current semantics. It does not disclose what happens when nodes or connections ARE supplied (wholesale replacement vs merge), which is the central destructive risk for a tool flagged destructiveHint=true. It also misstates the required-parameter set, which will confuse an agent constructing the call.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the operative constraint; nothing is redundant. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix is catalog noise that adds no meaning for an agent and is the only wasted token.

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 six-parameter destructive mutation with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, the definition is on the thin side: replacement-versus-merge behavior for nodes/connections, the meaning of `site`, and failure modes are all absent. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the partial-update rule is a meaningful addition, so it is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description must carry the load. It does add the key meaning that null/default values mean 'keep existing', which the schema alone does not convey, and names four of the six fields. But `site` is never explained and the required/optional framing is wrong, and there is no guidance on the expected shape of nodes or connections.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing workflow") and enumerates the mutable surfaces (nodes, connections, settings, name), which implicitly separates it from n8n_create_workflow, n8n_delete_workflow and the activation siblings. It does not explicitly name any sibling or state a boundary, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 sentence "omit them to keep current values" gives real operative guidance for a partial update, which is more than most tools offer. However, there is no when-to-use framing against update_workflow-adjacent siblings (e.g. tag or project updates), no prerequisites, and the guidance is itself inaccurate: `site` is required by the schema but the text says workflow_id is the only non-optional parameter.

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