fluig_workflow_events_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only indicates the operation is a write and mentions a dependency, but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, permissions, return behavior, or error conditions. This is insufficient 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 two sentences, front-loading the key information ('WRITE') and stating the action and dependency. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague language.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (updates process events via a widget), the description lacks critical context such as whether events are replaced or merged, return values (no output schema exists), and consequences of missing the widget. The contrast with the sibling is helpful but incomplete.

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 having a basic description. The description adds that events are '[{name, contents}]', providing slight structural hint. However, it does not compensate further, so the baseline score of 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 starts with 'WRITE' indicating mutation, states 'Set a process's events through the FluiggersWidget add-on,' clearly specifying verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling 'fluig_process_event_set_xml' by noting it does not require the widget and is versioned.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires the widget') and contrasts with an alternative tool that does not need the widget and is versioned. This provides clear context for when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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