update_workflow

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update an existing workflow' and gives no information about whether updates are partial patches or full replacements, whether omitted fields are reset, whether validation runs, whether changes are reversible, or what the mutation's side effects are.

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 with no wasted words, but it is severely under-specified for a tool with six parameters and nested objects. There is no structure, no parameter guidance, and no behavioral context, so the brevity is a weakness, not a strength.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, low schema description coverage, and many related sibling tools, this description is completely inadequate. The agent cannot determine correct invocation behavior, expected effects, or how to interpret the response.

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 17%, with only 'id' documented as 'Workflow ID'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the agent gets no help understanding the semantics of 'nodes', 'connections', 'settings', 'active', or whether a partial update is allowed.

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 clear verb ('update') and resource ('existing workflow'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_workflow and delete_workflow. However, it does not mention what aspects of the workflow can be changed, so it is not fully differentiated from activate_workflow or validate_workflow tools.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies the workflow must already exist and need modification, but there is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or relationship to create_workflow, activate_workflow, or validate_workflow_structure.

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