Workflows: update

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot convey: only name/description mutate while other fields round-trip unchanged, the update refuses to run on an incomplete trigger, and user confirmation is required. This is rich, non-obvious operational context.

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 action and its scope, then layers constraints and the alternative in a compact sequence. Slightly dense with four clauses, but every clause carries actionable information and nothing is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: mutation scope, side effects on untouched fields, the refusal precondition, the sibling tool for step edits, and the requirement to confirm with the user. Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers parameters.

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 schema already documents id, name and description (including the pointer to workflows_list for the id). The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a workflow's name or description') and immediately bounds the scope, noting that triggers, steps, group and enabled state are sent back unchanged. An agent can distinguish it from workflows_step_update and workflows_trigger without opening any schema.

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 step edits to `workflows_step_update`, states the precondition failure case (incomplete trigger, e.g. Timed with no cron) and where it must be fixed (dashboard), and instructs the agent to confirm with the user before running. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and alternatives are all present.

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