Workflows: step update

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: params are replaced wholesale rather than merged, the tool can enable but NOT disable a step, and it changes or deletes existing data so the user should be consulted. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then layers replacement semantics, sibling routing, and a safety warning, each in a distinct sentence. No filler or restatement of the name/title; every clause carries actionable information.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope of change, field replacement behavior, enable-only asymmetry, prerequisite read, sibling alternative, and a caution to confirm with the user. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: `params` is a whole-value replacement (not a patch) and must be read first, and `enabled` is one-directional. It does not explain the JSON format of `params` beyond the schema, keeping it just short of 5.

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 step parameters and properties') and immediately scopes the exact fields it touches (name, params, enabled) while naming what it preserves (action, start flag, links). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like workflows_step_add, workflows_step_link, and workflows_step_delete.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: read params first with `workflows_step_get`, and use `workflows_step_link` to change which step runs next. It also names the condition (params replace as a whole) that forces the read-first pattern, so the when/when-not guidance is complete.

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