Update an existing workflow by changing its trigger or steps. Provide the flow name and the new trigger or steps to apply changes.
Modificar un flow existente: cambiar disparador y/o pasos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Nombre del flow a modificar | |
| steps | No | Nuevos pasos | |
| trigger | No | Nuevo disparador |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.15Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'modify' implying mutation but does not explain side effects, prerequisites, or behavior on missing flows. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the core purpose without padding.
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 is simple with three parameters, all covered by the schema. However, it lacks behavioral details such as whether steps are replaced entirely or merged, and what happens if the flow does not exist. This is incomplete for a mutation tool, especially with no annotations.
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 each parameter has a description. The description adds context by mentioning 'disparador y/o pasos', which maps to trigger and steps, but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('modificar') and resource ('flow existente'), and clearly identifies the changeable aspects (trigger and/or steps). It distinguishes itself from siblings like df_flow_create and df_flow_delete by focusing on updating an existing flow.
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 phrase 'flow existente' implies this is for updating already-created flows, contrasting with creation/deletion. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving some inference required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.