ezd_api1_update_workflow_template

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

No behavioral traits beyond the basic 'update' operation are disclosed, and no annotations are provided to fill the gap. The description does not state what happens to existing data, whether the update is partial or full, what permissions are required, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It loses a point because it mostly restates the tool name and API context, adding limited new information for an agent.

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 and no output schema, this is too thin. It lacks information about return values, errors, prerequisites, and the exact effect of the update. The schema helps with parameters, but not with update semantics or expected behavior.

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% description coverage, so each parameter is already self-documenting. The description adds no additional meaning about how parameters relate to the update operation, but the schema carries the load.

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 clearly states the action ('Zaktualizuj' = update) and the resource ('szablon obiegu pracownika' = employee workflow template), and identifies the API variant ('przez API1 w systemie EZD PUW'). This disambiguates it from sibling tools like create, delete, and get workflow templates.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that creation should be done with ezd_api1_create_workflow_template, deletion with ezd_api1_delete_workflow_template, or retrieval with get variants. Usage context is only weakly implied by the word 'update'.

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