update_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses partial update behavior and the constraint that nodes and connections must be updated simultaneously. However, it omits details on permissions, side effects on active workflows, or reversibility, which are important 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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then key behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema, return values are covered. The description covers the main update behavior and a specific constraint. It is fairly complete for a tool with 5 parameters, though it could mention error handling for invalid workflow_id.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds a general note about partial updates (only filled fields updated), but does not add specific semantic details beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline is 3 per guidelines.

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 it updates an existing n8n workflow, distinguishing from siblings like create_workflow (creates new). It specifies partial update behavior, making the purpose 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 clear context for when to use (update existing workflow) and implies not to use for creation. It advises providing at least one field. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, though siblings are available.

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