update_workflow_action

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those hints: the PATCH semantics where only supplied fields are changed, which affects how an agent must construct calls (no need to resend unchanged fields). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: PATCH scope first, then the fetch-current-shape prerequisite, then the sibling alternative. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 37-parameter tool with 27% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but lean. It wisely points to get_workflow_action for the current shape, which mitigates the schema gaps, but it never says what the response looks like, how type-specific validation behaves, or what errors to expect. It covers selection and invocation basics but not the full complexity of this tool.

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 only 27%, well below 50%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters — but it adds no parameter-level meaning at all. It never mentions type-specific requirements (e.g., type 8 needs ai_suggestion_fields), prerequisite parameters, or which fields pair together. The schema's own descriptions cover only a fraction of the 37 parameters, and the description does nothing to close that gap.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource ('Update fields on ONE workflow action') plus the PATCH partial-update semantics, and explicitly distinguishes itself from its sibling update_workflow ('To change the actions of a whole workflow, see update_workflow'). An agent can tell this from the workflow-level update tool without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Use get_workflow_action first to see its current shape') and an explicit alternative with the condition that selects it ('To change the actions of a whole workflow, see update_workflow'). Nothing is left to inference.

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