ds_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. It discloses the HTTP method (PUT), that code is preserved, that version increments automatically, and that the tool can auto-offline/online the workflow (with defaults). These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond a simple 'update' statement. It omits some details like response shape or error conditions, but given no annotation support, this is strong disclosure.

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 a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by the fallback context. The Args block is long but necessary given the 0% schema coverage. It is structured with monospaced formatting and succinct per-parameter annotations. No redundant fluff, though the many parameters inherently lengthen the description.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must cover a lot. It gives a good overview and parameter semantics but does not mention what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure, updated version) or any potential side effects like whether old versions are retained. Given the complexity, the description is sufficient for basic invocation but leaves gaps for edge cases and return-value expectations.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description's Args section is essential. It explains every parameter with useful information: task_definitions and task_relations accept list or JSON string, locations defaults to '[]', name and description have 'empty = keep original' semantics, and auto_offline/auto_online have default values. This significantly compensates for the absent schema descriptions, though some explanations are terse (e.g., 'Project name' adds little beyond the name).

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 workflow definition' which clearly states the verb and resource. It adds specificity with 'PUT method, preserves code, auto-increments version' and explicitly frames it as a fallback to ds_modify_workflow_dag, distinguishing it from the sibling tool. This is a textbook example of purpose clarity.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'This is a fallback when ds_modify_workflow_dag cannot handle the change.' This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool over the primary alternative. Additionally, it notes that it supports 'full task definition override with complete replacement', which further clarifies its role relative to other update tools.

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