Update workflow

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

Despite annotations already marking destructiveHint and readOnlyHint, the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: non-atomic full PUT semantics, field preservation vs. whole-array/object replacement, version-matching requirements, permission needs ('write/unsafe mode plus read and update permission'), and confirmation of the returned projection. No contradictions 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?

Every sentence earns its place. The description front-loads the main action, then packs prerequisites, replacement semantics, alternatives, permissions, and return value into a compact but highly informative block. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 params, nested objects, output schema present), the description covers all critical operational aspects: identification, versioning, replacement semantics, alternatives, permissions, and return value. The output schema already handles return details, and the description exceeds what is necessary.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: workflowId 'selects the current record', expectedVersionId must be copied from the latest read and 'must match both pre-write reads', and the crucial behavior that 'each supplied array or object replaces that whole field.' This justifies a score above baseline.

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 opens with 'Update selected top-level fields through a non-atomic full PUT,' which clearly states a specific verb, resource, and HTTP method. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by name: 'Use n8n_update_node for one node property and n8n_workflows_update_tags for tags.'

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance, including the exact alternative tools for narrower operations and the prerequisite to 'copy expectedVersionId from its latest read.' It also clarifies the need to 'supply at least one writable field' and that version must match pre-write reads.

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