update-workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update an existing workflow' implying mutation, but does not elaborate on side effects, overwrite behavior, required permissions, rate limits, or whether the tool is idempotent. The formatting note does not address behavioral aspects.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a crucial invocation requirement. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Despite the schema covering all parameters, the description lacks information about what the tool returns (no output schema). For a mutation tool with a nested object parameter, an agent would benefit from knowing the return format or any confirmation of success. The description also omits details about the effect on the active state or connections. The completeness is insufficient 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 coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds critical value by specifying that the 'workflow' parameter must be provided as 'compact, single-line JSON without whitespace or newlines.' This is essential for correct invocation and goes beyond the schema's description of 'Workflow properties to update.'

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 'Update an existing workflow in n8n', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like create-workflow, delete-workflow, activate-workflow, and test-workflow. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not mention that activate-workflow should be used instead for toggling the active state, or that test-workflow is for testing. The only usage direction is the formatting instruction for the workflow parameter, which is about invocation, not selection.

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