update-workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the mutation action ('update') and a critical constraint about JSON formatting, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified properties. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and a critical formatting note. Both sentences earn their place, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 complexity (mutation tool with 3 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It misses details on parameter meanings, behavioral traits like side effects, and expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely references 'arguments' without explaining the three parameters (clientId, id, workflow) or their purposes. The JSON formatting note is helpful but doesn't add meaningful semantic context for the parameters themselves.

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 verb ('update') and resource ('existing workflow in n8n'), and specifies what can be modified ('properties, nodes, or connections'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update-project' or 'update-tag', though the workflow focus is implied.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use ('Use after get-workflow'), which helps guide the agent on prerequisites. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'create-workflow' for new workflows, leaving some gaps in comparison.

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