n8n_update_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic purpose. It does not reveal whether the update is a patch or full replacement, whether fields not specified are reset, error handling for nonexistent workflows, or required permissions.

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 a single sentence that essentially restates the tool name. While not verbose, it lacks sufficient substance to be considered concise in a meaningful way; under-specification makes it less than effective.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations. The description provides only a one-line purpose lacking behavioral context, return value expectations, or update semantics, making it inadequate for safe and correct use.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter having a brief description. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 'Actualizar un workflow existente' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (existing workflow). It distinguishes from create/delete/get/list siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from activate/deactivate workflows. Overall, the core 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like n8n_create_workflow or n8n_activate_workflow. There is no mention of prerequisites, partial vs. full updates, or scenarios where this tool should be avoided.

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